[flagged]
Also AFAIK the Google Fonts question (is the IP alone already PII, if Google has no way of tying the IP to a person) has not been decided by the ECJ yet. There've only been decisions by lower level German courts that are still in dispute.
"Well if the cookie comes from a third party it implicitly allows tracking."
Yes, because this makes tracking possible you have to gather consent first, regardless if tracking actually happens. Very bad solution, they could just define how data can be legally used, instead of also overreaching by defining how data can be legally transmitted.
> strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.
One very ignored qualifier here is "information society service". This is defined in Directive 2015/1535 and one of the requirements is that the service is "normally provided for remuneration". That is usually understood to mean that the service needs to be tied to provider's economic activity. This effectively excludes, for example, public authorities websites which are for their own public duties. It does however include e.g. ad supported websites.
And yes, I'm aware that many national implementations actually miss that qualifier. That can save the non-commercial private sector websites, but public authorities do not benefit from Member States failing to transpose Directive correctly.
People act shocked when it leads to unintended side effects, but companies legal teams are just telling them they have no idea how a judge will interpret these broad wordings in regards to their business.
People say this fixes "future loopholes" but as you see with the cookie banner, it just leads to every company assuming the worst case scenario.
Going back years of conversation on cookie banners you'll see a constant argument on when they're required or not precisely because it's not defined explicitly.