Feature request: allow hiding unused consent categories from the settings modal

[rutger1140]

First off, great work with the plugin! It's implementing really seamlessly in our projects now.

I just have one question about the categories. Sometimes sites only use 1 or 2, but the settings modal still shows all four. Empty toggles for categories the site doesn't actually use are confusing for visitors and arguably misleading (they imply data processing that isn't happening).

Concrete case: a site whose only consent-requiring integration is embedded YouTube (marketing), with cookieless analytics (like Plausible) that needs no consent. Ideally the modal would show just Essential + Marketing, but there's currently no way to drop functional/analytics via config.

Maybe a per-category flag to hide it from the modal?

Cheers

[reatlat]

Hey @rutger1140, thanks for the kind words. Really good request, and I'll implement it this week.

One thing I want to flag on the Plausible example though. "Cookieless" doesn't automatically mean "consent-free." The ePrivacy Directive (Art. 5(3)) requires consent for storing OR accessing information on a user's device. The mechanism is irrelevant. Cookie, pixel, localStorage, script, even a read-only User-Agent lookup. The Article 29 Working Party said as much in WP224.

Plausible's "no consent needed" position leans on legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR) for anonymized reach measurement, with processing in the EU. That's a defensible read, but it's not the only one. Solid counter-argument here: plausible/analytics#1963

On the California side: there's a wave of CIPA pen-register lawsuits (§§ 638.50, 638.51) targeting website tracking tools. Courts are split. Blaker v. NetScout Systems (May 2026, LA Superior Court) dismissed with prejudice, finding the pen-register statute covers telephone communications, not web analytics. Other courts have gone the other way. Not settled law yet, but worth watching if you have California visitors.

We go into the ePrivacy consent-scope question in detail on the site:
https://cookiezest.com/learn/eprivacy-directive/
https://cookiezest.com/learn/tracking-pixels-consent/

On the feature itself: agreed that empty toggles are misleading. I'll add a per-category hidden flag. Essential stays visible always, can't be hidden. Hidden categories keep their default value in the consent object so interceptors and callbacks don't break. The modal just skips rendering them. I'll link the PR here once it's up.

[rutger1140]

Thanks for the quick turnaround, much appreciated!

We're EU/NL-based, so the ePrivacy context is right on point. I appreciate you flagging it and the links, genuinely useful to have!

The design sounds exactly right: Essential always visible, hidden categories keeping their default so interceptors/callbacks don't break, modal just skipping the render. 💪

I'll be happy to test and report back when the feature is in.

[rutger1140]

@reatlat Just tested the new release, all good! 🙇‍♂

[reatlat]

Hey @rutger1140, the wait is over — v2.6.0 is live and your feature is in it.

Per-category hidden flag is now available. Set it in JS config or via data-hide-categories on the script tag. Hidden categories are forced to rejected — no way for a visitor to accept a toggle they cannot see. Essential stays visible always.

We also shipped a bunch of other stuff in this release: new banner positions (top-left, top-right, center), button layouts (row / split / split-modern), backdrop blur, hard consent wall, and dynamic button text color via CSS contrast-color().

Full changelog: https://cookiezest.com/changelog/v2.6.0/

And if you want to play with the config builder online (all the new options are in there): https://cookiezest.com/play/

Thanks again for the well-reasoned request. It made us think harder about the transparency problem, not just the UI one.