Google Analytics and GDPR in 2026: Compliance, Limitations and Best Practice

Google Analytics and GDPR: What to Bear in Mind in 2026 to Measure SEO and GEO Without Increasing Risk

If you have already read our Google Analytics guide, this is the specialist follow-up on Google Analytics compliance with the GDPR in 2026, with a practical SEO/GEO focus: what changed after CNIL scrutiny, what GA4 genuinely enables, and how to reduce risk without unnecessarily undermining analysis quality.

Why This Compliance Focus Complements Your Analytics Knowledge (Without Repeating the Basics)

In B2B, the challenge is no longer simply "install GA4", but to make measurement reliable in a world where it has become more fragile: consent, browser restrictions, modelling, transfers outside the EU, and disciplined governance of settings. These constraints directly affect editorial decisions: which pages to optimise, what content to prioritise, which channels really drive leads, and how to explain performance changes without jumping to the conclusion that your SEO is the issue.

In 2026, measurement matters even more as search continues to shift towards zero-click experiences and generative answers. Semrush (2025) estimates that 60% of searches end with no click (source referenced in our SEO statistics). Fewer clicks means every visit you do win is more valuable — and the quality of your instrumentation (including consent) carries more weight when interpreting results.

Measuring SEO/GEO Under Constraints: How Cookie Consent Affects Analysis, Attribution and Reporting

CNIL reminds organisations that the use of cookies and other trackers is tightly regulated, and that consent has been strengthened under the GDPR. In practice, you need to address the topic on two levels:

• "Cookies/trackers" layer: banner, information, collection, proof and withdrawal of consent (source: CNIL).
• Strict GDPR layer: lawful basis, data minimisation, retention periods, rights, security, and — crucially — transfers (EU to US) depending on your setup and contracts.

Concretely, once part of your audience refuses measurement, you will often see:

• less stable attribution (an artificial rise in "direct", incomplete journeys);
• under-reported conversions (forms, clicks, micro-actions);
• comparable trends, but absolute levels that become harder to interpret — especially if your CMP or consent mode changes mid-period.

The goal is not to "recover 100% of the data", but to keep KPIs robust and your analysis method consistent despite consent constraints.

CNIL, International Transfers and Google Analytics 4 (GA4): Background, Key Decisions and Where Things Stand Now

CNIL's 2022 Position: Why Certain Setups Were Deemed Non-Compliant (International Transfers and Insufficient Safeguards)

After the Schrems II ruling (2020) invalidated the Privacy Shield, several European authorities took the view that common Google Analytics configurations led to transfers of personal data to the United States without adequate safeguards. In France, CNIL in 2022 issued formal notices to several organisations regarding their use of the tool and published a dedicated Q&A on these notices (source: CNIL).

The underlying governance takeaway is straightforward: the issue was not a single "privacy" setting, but the combination of personal data + international transfers + safeguards considered insufficient in post-Schrems II assessments.

Where GA4 Stands Today: What Is More Stable, What Still Needs Attention, and B2B Implications

Since July 2023, the context has evolved on two fronts:

• Technology: the move to Google Analytics 4 (Universal Analytics stopped collecting new data after 1 July 2023, in line with the timelines referenced in the main article and its cited sources).
• Legal framework: CNIL relayed, on 10 July 2023, the European Commission's adoption of a new adequacy decision for transfers to the United States, indicating that transfers can now take place "freely, without specific safeguards" within that defined framework (summary source: Axens Audit).

Even so, one practical conclusion remains true in 2026: compliance is not a simple yes/no label. It depends on your configuration, your purposes (audience measurement vs marketing), how you collect consent, your retention settings and your governance. Several analyses also note that the tool itself is "neutral" under the GDPR, and that your usage and settings determine the obligations triggered (source: Secure Privacy).

What a "Simple Configuration" Does Not Solve: Accountability, Purposes and International Transfer Governance

Even if GA4 provides privacy-oriented options (IP anonymisation, retention settings, deletion tools), these do not replace:

• clear and complete information (banner + privacy/cookie policy);
• settings aligned with your declared purposes (audience measurement vs retargeting);
• a documented assessment of transfers and safeguards, based on your context.

CNIL also states that a properly configured proxy can be an operational approach to reduce risk for individuals (source: CNIL). But "proxy" does not mean "automatically compliant": you still need to evidence what you do, why you do it, and which security measures apply.

Personal Data, Roles and Governance: What GA4 Processes (and What It Must Not Receive)

Controller vs Processor: Who Does What Between Your Business, Your Agency and Google

In practice, your organisation (as the advertiser or publisher) determines the purposes and essential means of tracking — what you measure, why, for how long and with which integrations — so you carry the core governance responsibility. Google Analytics processes data "on your behalf" in a processor-like model, but that does not remove your duties: configuration, information, lawful basis, rights management and consistency between what you declare and what your tags actually send.

What Categories of Data Are Processed: Identifiers, Events, Parameters, Technical Signals and Anti-Fraud Measures

GA4 collects, through a site script, information about interactions (events) and technical context. Compliance analyses commonly cite categories such as online identifiers (including cookie identifiers), IP addresses, device identifiers and client identifiers depending on your configuration (source: Secure Privacy).

From a privacy-by-design SEO/GEO perspective, the key step is deciding upfront which events you genuinely need to steer editorial performance (reading behaviour, intent-driven clicks, form completions) and which are merely "nice to have".

Prohibited Data: What You Should Never Send to Analytics

The principle is simple: never send to GA4 information that can directly identify a person, or sensitive data, via URLs, event labels, parameters, form fields or imports. In practice, avoid:

• email addresses, phone numbers or names in a URL (for example, query parameters);
• internal identifiers tied to a named individual (HR IDs, patient IDs, etc.);
• health data, opinions, detailed financial data, or any sensitive content embedded in events.

If you instrument B2B forms, use neutral events (for example, submit_lead_form) and store detailed information in your own systems (CRM), not in an audience measurement tool.

Google Analytics Cookies (GA4): Types, How They Work and the Google Analytics Cookie Lifespan You Should Understand

Does the Tool Use Cookies?

Yes. GA4 relies on browser-side tracking technologies, including cookies, to recognise a browser, connect interactions and stabilise certain measurements. Some analyses describe the standard flow as: site script → collection via cookies and trackers → transmission to Google servers → processing → aggregated reporting back to the site (source: Secure Privacy).

From a CNIL perspective, the "cookies/trackers" question is handled separately from strict GDPR compliance. CNIL distinguishes between "rules to follow for cookies" and "solutions for audience measurement tools", including the notion of a possible exemption under conditions (source: CNIL).

GA4 Cookies: What They Do (Measurement, Attribution, Abuse Prevention) and When They May Not Be Set

Without going into a list of cookie names — which depends on your implementation and is not included in the provided sources — focus on the practical purpose:

• measurement: distinguish visitors and interactions, consolidate navigation;
• attribution: connect acquisition (campaign, source) to events;
• integrity: limit certain abuses (automated traffic) using technical signals.

Conversely, an analytics cookie may not be set if the user refuses the "audience measurement" purpose in your CMP, if your implementation blocks the tag until consent is given (basic mode), or if a browser or extension prevents cookies from being set.

What Is the Default Cookie Lifespan, and How Can the Google Analytics Cookie Lifespan Change With Your Settings?

It is important to separate two things:

• Cookie lifespans (browser-side): these depend on the specific cookie and your technical setup.
• Data retention (GA4-side): configured in the interface. One operational source, for example, mentions a 14-month retention setting to keep certain explorations available beyond 2 months (source: Agence Anode).

Either way, the GDPR logic is consistent: retain data only for as long as it is necessary for the stated purpose, then delete it (the storage limitation principle, referenced in GA4 compliance analyses: Secure Privacy).

Google Analytics Cookie Lifespan: Durations, Renewal, Configuration-Driven Variation and Effects on "Users" vs "Sessions"

When you change your consent logic, retention settings or tag firing rules, you inevitably change how GA4 "recognises" a browser. A typical SEO/GEO effect is more apparent "new" users and less continuity from one day to the next, even if real demand has not changed. This is why you should document every CMP, tagging and consent mode change, then analyse shifts across comparable time windows.

GA4 Without Cookies: What Remains Measurable, and the Limits for SEO and GEO

Depending on your setup — and particularly your consent mode — GA4 may operate in a restricted manner when a user refuses consent. Some sources describe limited collection and its impact on attribution, journey analysis and certain conversions (source: Agence Anode).

For SEO/GEO, that means prioritising metrics that remain interpretable despite gaps (trends, engagement, key events) and leaning more on Search Console for "pre-click" visibility signals (impressions, queries, positions).

Consent, CMPs and Consent Mode: Making GA4 More GDPR-Aligned Without Losing Measurement Entirely

Cookie Consent: When It Is Required, How to Collect It and How to Avoid Misleading Implementations

On a site using cookie-based audience measurement, consent should be prior, specific and freely given, with refusal as easy as acceptance. Compliance guidance commonly notes: no consent buried in terms and conditions, no ambiguous actions, and caution around cookie walls (explicitly addressed by CNIL: CNIL).

CNIL also notes that some audience measurement cookies may be exempt from consent under strict conditions, and that this exemption is not automatic (source: CNIL). In practice, you must verify your purposes, your configuration and the absence of cross-use.

Consent Mode v2: Principle, Signals, Modelling and Impacts on SEO/GEO Conversions

Consent Mode adapts tag behaviour based on the user's choice. Some sources describe it as a "translator" between your site and tags, making it possible — depending on configuration — to limit collection when consent is refused and to rely on aggregated or modelled measurement (source: Secure Privacy).

SEO/GEO watch-out: modelling can help preserve a macro view (trends, relative contribution), but it introduces uncertainty. One source also notes that "advanced" mode (anonymous signals without cookies) sits in a legally greyer area, while "basic" mode blocks tags without consent (source: Agence Anode).

Interpreting Reports After Modelling: Common Biases, Uncertainty Margins and Safeguards

After enabling a consent mode with modelling, avoid two common mistakes:

• Comparing absolute levels before and after a consent change without noting that change (you may attribute a tracking-driven shift to SEO).
• Over-optimising a page or channel based on a "reconstructed" signal without corroboration (Search Console, CRM, logs, or at least consistent trends).

Useful safeguards include a change log (CMP, GTM, events), like-for-like comparison periods, and prioritising key events and engagement over overly granular metrics.

GA4 Consent Mode: Essential Tagging Settings (GTM or gtag) and Common Pitfalls

Operationally, a robust implementation depends on conditional tag firing via your CMP and your tagging plan. One source describes a typical setup through Google Tag Manager: create a GA4 stream, retrieve a G-XXXXXXXXXX ID, create a "Google tag", test in DebugView, then publish (source: Agence Anode).

Common issues to audit:

• GA4 tag firing before the user has made a choice;
• double tagging (gtag + GTM);
• marketing events enabled under an "audience measurement" purpose;
• mismatches between the banner, the policy and what is actually active.

Anonymisation, Minimisation and Retention: The GDPR Settings That Truly Matter in GA4

IP Anonymisation: What GA4 Does (and Does Not Do) and How to Document It

GA4 includes IP anonymisation (masking) capabilities, often presented as a privacy-first improvement. However, some analyses highlight a critical point: even with IP masking, the tool may process other online identifiers (cookies, device IDs) which remain personal data under the GDPR (source: Secure Privacy).

From a compliance perspective, document what you anonymise, what you limit, your purposes, and alignment with your banner and policy. Anonymisation reduces risk; it is not a free pass.

Reducing Collection: Events, Parameters, User-ID, Google Signals, Data Sharing and Imports

Data minimisation is often the highest-leverage step: collect only what supports decisions. In B2B editorial contexts, that typically means:

• prioritising a handful of intent events (clicks to pricing pages, demo requests, downloads);
• avoiding event parameters that could contain personal data;
• keeping "audience measurement" and "marketing/remarketing" strictly separate (with distinct consent where required).

If you use other Google products (Ads, remarketing, GTM), some analyses note that purpose limitation, configuration and explicit marketing consent become even more important (source: Secure Privacy).

Retention Periods: Choosing a Retention Setting That Fits Your SEO, GEO and B2B Goals

Your retention period should match your decision cycle. One operational source recommends a 14-month retention setting to keep certain explorations usable beyond 2 months (source: Agence Anode). This is not a universal rule: adapt it to your timelines (seasonality, sales cycle, publishing cadence) and document your rationale.

Server-Side Tracking, Proxies and Reduced Exposure: Benefits, Limits and Data Impacts

Why Server-Side Tracking Changes the Exposure Surface (and What It Does Not "Legalise")

Server-side tracking shifts part of collection from the browser to your servers, which can improve resilience against blockers, strengthen security control and clarify governance over outbound data flows. But it does not replace consent, information duties or transfer assessments. It can reduce exposure and give you more control over what is sent to third parties, without removing your obligations.

Proxying Requirements: Technical Expectations, Traceability, Security and Common Implementation Errors

CNIL indicates that a properly configured proxy can be an operational way to reduce risks for individuals (source: CNIL). In 2022, some summaries described proxying as a possible but complex response to deploy (source: Axens Audit).

Practical points to watch:

• Traceability: be able to describe data flows (what passes through, what is removed or masked, what is retained).
• Security: hardening, logs, access control and environment separation.
• Declared compliance: consistency with your banner, policy and processing records.

SEO/GEO Impacts: Attribution, Latency, Event Reliability, Deduplication and KPI Consistency

From a data standpoint, server-side approaches can:

• reduce some measurement gaps caused by blockers;
• improve consistency for key events if your tagging plan is clean;
• introduce complexity (deduplication, latency, counting differences) that must be tested and documented.

Best practice is to validate a limited scope first (one critical funnel), then expand, and monitor a few stable indicators in a dashboard — conversion trends, engagement rate, content contribution — rather than multiplying fragile metrics.

GEO Angle: Impact on Visibility in Generative AI Answers and on Performance Measurement

How GDPR Compliance Affects Performance Interpretation When Content Is Cited in Generative AI Answers

GEO (optimisation for generative engines) amplifies a trend already visible in SEO: part of the value happens without a click, through citations and generated answers. GEO data indicates that 99% of AI Overviews cite results from the organic top 10 (State of AI Search / Squid Impact, 2025, referenced in our GEO statistics). That directly links classic organic performance to visibility within generative answers.

However, if consent reduces measured volume in GA4, you risk underestimating the impact of authority-building content — read, cited and shared — that is simply less trackable. This is why it is useful to align GA4 (post-click) with Search Console (pre-click) and focus on trends and quality signals.

One GEO study also highlights a relationship between anonymisation and trust, with a +34% positive effect on trust (Squid Impact, 2025, referenced in the GEO statistics). This is not presented as a direct ranking factor, but it underlines a broader point: transparent data practices and minimised collection help build trust — and support editorial performance.

Source Segmentation and Tagging Conventions: Reducing "Direct" and Ambiguous Referrals in GA4

When measurement is constrained, disciplined campaign tagging becomes a key driver of clarity: UTM conventions, consistent campaign naming and redirect control. One source notes that UTM parameters remain essential, particularly since certain advertising identifiers are blocked on iOS 14.5+ (source: Agence Anode).

For SEO/GEO, the aim is to avoid conclusions such as "direct traffic is up, so SEO must be down" when you have simply lost source information due to consent changes, browser behaviour or untagged links.

What to Prioritise When Consent Reduces Measured Volume: Engagement, Conversions, Quality Signals and Trends

When volume drops, prioritise indicators that are less sensitive to tracking breaks:

• trends (week on week, month on month) on a comparable scope;
• key events (enquiries, downloads) rather than micro-events;
• engagement (engaged sessions, engagement time);
• cross-referencing with Search Console to connect queries, pages and intent.

To contextualise the "performance vs governance" tension, Statista Market Insights (2025) highlights tighter regulation and consent requirements for data collection in Europe, impacting digital campaign performance (referenced in our SEA statistics).

More GDPR-Aligned Analytics Alternatives: When to Assess Them Without Triggering an Unnecessary Migration

Pragmatic Comparison Criteria: Hosting, Data Control, Governance, Integrations and Analytical Limits

If risk levels or consent constraints are no longer compatible with your governance, you may want to assess privacy-oriented solutions. To compare without bias, use concrete criteria:

• hosting location and control over international transfers;
• ability to minimise collection and configure strict audience measurement;
• rights management and handling of requests (deletion, access);
• analysis quality for your SEO/GEO use cases (journeys, funnels, segmentation);
• total cost (licence + implementation + ongoing operations).

CNIL also illustrates cookie categories within a consent manager (essential, audience measurement, Google services, etc.) and cites Matomo in an example (source: CNIL). The broader point is that in 2026 the challenge is not finding a "magic tool", but implementing end-to-end governance: "purposes → collection → proof → retention → rights".

Matomo: Differences vs Google Analytics, Watch-Outs and Use Cases

Without recommending migration, it can be useful to understand differences in philosophy and reporting between solutions. A comparative overview is available here: Matomo vs Google Analytics. The aim is to know when to compare (for example, hosting requirements or internal constraints) and how to compare (scope, definitions, KPIs), to avoid an expensive move that does not solve the underlying issue (tagging, purposes, governance).

Connecting Compliance to Editorial Performance: How Incremys Uses GA4 and Search Console via API

Bringing Together SEO, GEO, Conversions and KPIs Without Multiplying Exports, Access and Risk

Incremys is not designed to replace your measurement tools: the platform integrates them via API (GA4 and Search Console) to centralise SEO/GEO insights, link acquisition to on-site behaviour and track consistent KPIs. This primarily helps reduce exports, better document definitions and industrialise decision-oriented reporting within a 360° SaaS platform, without adding an extra layer of data collection.

FAQ: Google Analytics, Cookies and the GDPR

Is Google Analytics GDPR Compliant?

There is no universal yes/no answer. Compliance depends on your configuration (consent, minimisation, retention, data sharing), your purposes and how transfers are handled. Some analyses note that the tool is "neutral" under the GDPR: obligations are driven by usage (source: Secure Privacy).

What Has CNIL Said Since the 2022 Decision?

CNIL issued formal notices to several organisations in 2022 and addresses the topic through a dedicated section. It links the tool's use to international transfer issues and notes that a properly configured proxy can be a way to reduce risks (source: CNIL). In July 2023, CNIL relayed an EU–US adequacy decision (summary source: Axens Audit).

Does the Solution Use Cookies?

GA4 can use cookies and other browser-side mechanisms to measure audiences and stabilise attribution. CNIL notes that cookies and trackers are regulated and that consent has been strengthened under the GDPR (source: CNIL).

Which GA4 Cookies Are Set, and What Are They For?

The provided sources do not list the exact names of GA4 cookies. Functionally, they are mainly used to recognise a browser, link interactions across a journey and stabilise attribution. If you need to document precisely which cookies your site sets, base this on a technical audit (browser tools, tag manager, CMP) and record the associated purposes.

What Is the Default Cookie Lifespan, and Can the Google Analytics Cookie Lifespan Change?

Yes, lifespans can vary based on your technical configuration and the browser environment. Do not confuse this with data retention in GA4, which is configured in the interface. One operational source cites a 14-month retention setting (source: Agence Anode).

Can You Use GA4 Without Consent?

In practice, if your implementation sets non-essential cookies or trackers, prior consent applies. CNIL indicates that some audience measurement cookies may be exempt from consent under conditions, which requires strict configuration and a limited purpose (source: CNIL).

What Does Consent Mode v2 Change for SEO Analysis and Conversion Measurement?

Consent Mode adapts tag behaviour based on the user's choice and can enable aggregated or modelled measurement when consent is refused (depending on configuration). This can help preserve trends, but it can also introduce interpretation bias. Sources distinguish basic mode (tags blocked without consent) and advanced mode (anonymous signals), with greater legal uncertainty around the latter (sources: Secure Privacy, Agence Anode).

Is IP Anonymisation Enough to Be GDPR Compliant?

No. Even if GA4 can mask IP addresses, the tool may still process other online identifiers (cookies, device identifiers). Some analyses therefore emphasise that IP anonymisation alone does not remove GDPR obligations (source: Secure Privacy).

What Data Is the Tool Not Allowed to Collect?

You should not send information that directly identifies a person (for example, email address, phone number or name) or sensitive data via URLs, events, parameters or imports. A simple rule works well: if a data point is not essential to an SEO/GEO decision, do not send it.

Which Settings Should You Prioritise to Minimise Personal Data?

Practical priorities: keep events to what is strictly useful, avoid rich parameters that may contain personal data, clearly separate analytics and marketing purposes (with distinct consent where required), choose a justified retention period, and audit your tagging plan regularly.

Does Server-Side Tracking Make GA4 Compliant "by Default"?

No. Server-side tracking can reduce exposure and improve governance, but it does not replace consent, transparency duties, or transfer and purpose management. Treat it as a technical risk-reduction measure, not an automatic legal validation.

How Can You Document GDPR Compliance (Records, Purposes, Retention, Collection Settings) Without Overloading Teams?

The most efficient approach is to maintain a lightweight but complete baseline: purposes by category (audience measurement, marketing), the list of tracked events and their parameters, retention settings, CMP and consent mode versions, and a change log (date, reason, expected impact). This is often enough to explain KPI shifts without restarting a full audit.

How Do You Measure GEO Impact if Some Visitors Refuse Cookies?

Combine GA4 (post-click: engagement and conversions) with Search Console (pre-click: impressions, queries, pages). Steer with trends and robust indicators, and monitor the performance of content that is likely to be cited. GEO data indicates that 99% of AI Overviews cite results from the organic top 10 (State of AI Search / Squid Impact, 2025, referenced in our GEO statistics): SEO fundamentals still matter, even when clicks become scarcer.

When Should You Consider a More GDPR-Aligned Alternative, and How Do You Compare Without Bias?

Consider an alternative if internal constraints (hosting, governance, sector requirements) make your risk level unacceptable or compliance disproportionately costly. Compare on an identical scope (same events, same definitions) and agree objective criteria (hosting, control, rights handling, integrations, cost). For a comparative read, see our analysis Matomo vs Google Analytics.

To explore more on SEO, GEO and performance-led measurement, visit the Incremys Blog.