Read on and you’ll see how the laws compare, what regulators expect in practice, and what that means for your banners and adtech setup.

Why LATAM Regulators Are Moving Toward GDPR-Style Consent

Latin American regulators are tightening the screws for a reason. Data moves constantly between the region and Europe, and Argentina’s EU adequacy status depends on showing GDPR-level safeguards.

Companies that work across borders can’t afford one standard for Europe and another for LATAM, so the laws are being pulled in the same direction.

Meanwhile, the big platforms are raising expectations on their own. Google, Meta, and the programmatic ad world now rely on Google Consent Mode v2 and GDPR-style banner flows everywhere.

It’s only a legal must inside the EEA, UK, and Switzerland, but most marketers in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico still adopt it. The alternative is losing data quality and ad performance.

Enforcement is also catching up. Argentina’s AAIP has introduced a stricter sanction system and already used it against major players. Colombia’s SIC keeps insisting on “previo, expreso e informado” consent and pushes companies to show they have real proof of authorization.

And in Mexico, the new LFPDPPP took effect in March 2025 while INAI’s responsibilities are being transferred under the reform — a messy transition, but with higher expectations for compliance.

The bottom line: GDPR-style, user-first consent isn’t just Europe’s problem. In Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, it’s quickly becoming both the safer legal route and the smarter business move.

Argentina: AAIP, Habeas Data Law, and EU Adequacy Status

Argentina’s privacy framework rests on Law 25.326 (Habeas Data) and Decree 1558/2001. The rule of thumb is simple: no processing without consent, purposes must be clear, and people need to know what’s being done with their data.

The Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública (AAIP) is in charge of making sure that happens. In 2024 it issued Resolution 126/2024, a new scheme that classifies violations and ties them to specific fines.

That was a turning point — Argentina’s enforcement suddenly looked more structured. By 2025, the agency was also putting energy into public-sector compliance projects, a sign it’s trying to strengthen its role beyond private-sector oversight.

Then there’s Argentina’s big differentiator: EU adequacy status, confirmed again in 2024. No other country in Latin America has it. For companies, that translates into fewer headaches when moving data to and from Europe. The flip side is that adequacy isn’t permanent — Argentina has to keep aligning with GDPR to keep the badge.

Cookies and tracking remain murkier. There’s no separate ePrivacy-style law, and AAIP hasn’t published cookie-specific rules. Still, the common interpretation is that if cookies handle personal data, you need consent and a clear explanation. Many companies err on the side of caution and use an opt-in model for anything non-essential.

On the UX side, banners in Spanish (es-AR) usually follow three simple rules:

• Put Accept and Reject buttons side by side, no tricks.
• Keep the language short and clear.
• Leave users an opt-out option — most sites add a “Cambiar preferencias” link in the footer.

Mexico: New LFPDPPP, INAI Changes, and Cookie Guidance

Mexico’s data privacy framework changed dramatically in March 2025 with the arrival of the new LFPDPPP. The law expands obligations and adds new rules, but here’s the catch: many of the technical standards haven’t been issued yet. So right now companies have the outline of the law but are still waiting on the fine print.

Oversight is also in flux. The Instituto Nacional de Transparencia, Acceso a la Información y Protección de Datos Personales (INAI) is being dissolved, and its responsibilities are shifting to other authorities. That transfer is still happening, which leaves businesses unsure about what enforcement will look like in practice.

When it comes to consent, Mexico still uses a two-tier model:

• Tacit consent is valid in limited situations.
• Express consent is required for sensitive data.

The 2025 reform tightens the rules, narrowing when tacit consent can be used and broadening the cases where express consent is the only option.

The Aviso de Privacidad remains central. It must spell out if cookies, web beacons, or similar tools are used and explain how users can disable them or opt out.

For banners targeted at Mexican users, practical UX choices include:

• Using es-MX terms that match the notice (especially “Aviso de Privacidad”).
• Showing accept and reject clearly, without burying one option.
• Keeping a visible link for users to change or withdraw consent later.

Transfers of personal data outside Mexico still rely on strong contracts and transparent privacy notices. The new LFPDPPP makes these safeguards even more critical, so companies should treat them as a priority rather than an afterthought.

Colombia: SIC Enforcement and Express Consent Rules

Colombia’s privacy regime comes from Law 1581 of 2012 and Decree 1377 of 2013. Together they lay out the basics: companies need consent to process data, a privacy notice has to be in place, and international transfers are tightly controlled.

The Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC) is the regulator and it doesn’t take a light touch. Consent must be “previo, expreso e informado.” In plain terms: it has to be collected before any processing, it can’t be implied, and the user needs to understand what they’re agreeing to.

There’s also a proof of authorization duty. Saying “we had consent” isn’t enough — the SIC wants evidence. Controllers are expected to keep logs showing when and how each person gave permission, and those records need to be ready if the regulator asks for them.

Enforcement reflects this. The SIC has fined companies that couldn’t show valid consent, and Colombian courts have backed that position — if you can’t prove it, the processing is unlawful.

Key points to keep in mind:

• Cookies and tracking: Colombia doesn’t have a standalone eprivacy law. Instead, the general data protection rules apply. That means explicit (previo, expreso e informado) consent is required when cookies involve personal data or otherwise identify the user. Privacy notices should spell out what categories of cookies are used and why.
• Transfers: Data can only leave Colombia if it’s going to a country with an adequate level of protection, or if safeguards approved by the SIC — like model clauses — are in place.

GDPR vs. LATAM Consent Models: Key Differences and Similarities

The GDPR gives companies several ways to justify data use, while Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico lean far more heavily on consent. That difference shapes how banners look, how notices are written, and how revocation works in real life.

GDPR Consent Model

Under the GDPR, consent is only one piece of a bigger puzzle. Organizations have flexibility, but the standard for valid consent is high.

• Companies can rely on six lawful bases — consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public interest, or legitimate interests. A retailer in Germany, for instance, might use “contract” to process purchase data rather than asking for consent.
• Consent itself must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. Pre-ticked boxes or silence won’t cut it.
• Withdrawal has to be just as easy as giving consent — think of a one-click unsubscribe on marketing emails.
• legitimate interest is often used for things like audience measurement that doesn’t identify individuals, but it always requires a balancing test.

LATAM Consent Models

In Latin America, the rules are tighter. Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico generally expect consent to be the main legal basis, with only a few narrow exceptions.

• In Argentina, consent is the default basis for processing. An exception would be using information from public registries, which doesn’t require prior approval.
• Colombia sets the bar higher with “previo, expreso e informado” consent. A Cookie Banner that only gives users the option to accept would fail this standard.
• Mexico still allows tacit consent in certain everyday scenarios — for example, when someone fills in a contact form and doesn’t opt out. But since the 2025 LFPDPPP reform, the space for tacit consent has shrunk, and express consent is mandatory for sensitive data.
• Transparency is a common thread. Mexico’s Aviso de Privacidad must explain cookies and web beacons, while Argentina and Colombia both require plain-language privacy notices.
• Revocation rights exist in all three systems. In practice, that might be a simple opt-out link in Mexico or an online request form in Colombia.
• legitimate interest is underdeveloped compared with GDPR. In Colombia especially, companies almost always rely on consent — even for tasks like internal analytics that European firms often justify under legitimate interest.

Adtech Compliance in LATAM: Google Consent Mode v2 and IAB Frameworks

For teams running GA4, Google Ads, or programmatic campaigns in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, compliance isn’t just about banners and notices. It’s also about how consent signals flow into the adtech stack and keep measurement reliable.

Google Consent Mode v2

This isn’t legally required in LATAM — local laws don’t mention it — but Google now enforces Consent Mode v2 for traffic from the EEA, UK, and Switzerland. Many publishers in the region enable it anyway, because it communicates consent states (e.g., ad_user_data, ad_personalization) to Google Ads and GA4.

That reduces blind spots in reporting and improves conversion modeling. The caveat: results depend on good configuration and sufficient data. If Consent Mode is mis-set or traffic volumes are low, the “modeled conversions” may not fill every gap.

IAB frameworks

The IAB TCF 2.2 applies only in the EU/UK, but it matters for LATAM sites that also attract European traffic. The IAB Global Privacy Platform (GPP) already supports US and Canadian strings, plus TCF Europe, but there is no LATAM-specific string yet.

Adoption is uneven: some major platforms (e.g., Google Ad Manager) accept only certain GPP signals. Preparing CMPs and banners to send GPP signals where available is smart future-proofing, even if it’s not yet required locally.

Platform behavior

GA4, Google Ads, and Meta are standardizing on GDPR-style flows globally. In practice, that means LATAM publishers who implement banners with clear “accept/reject” logic and pass structured consent signals are aligned with platform expectations — even if local law doesn’t explicitly demand it.

For programmatic campaigns, buyers increasingly look for standardized consent signals to reduce risk and improve trust.

LATAM businesses don’t face a legal mandate to run Consent Mode v2 or IAB strings, but the adtech ecosystem rewards those who do. Measurement is stronger, platforms process signals correctly, and partners see a cleaner compliance posture.

Implementation Playbook for LATAM Cookie Compliance

Once the legal requirements are clear, the real work begins: making banners, scripts, and consent records work smoothly without tanking performance. Here are the technical moves that teams in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico should prioritize.

1. Technical setup
   Block non-essential scripts until you have consent. That includes analytics, ads, and third-party trackers. Load your CMP code asynchronously and keep it lightweight — otherwise banners drag down Core Web Vitals.
2. Data layer events
   Fire structured events whenever the banner shows, when users accept or reject, and when they update preferences. In practice, this means your data layer should capture consent_show, consent_accept, consent_reject, and consent_update. These signals make it easy to audit and feed downstream analytics.
3. Self-hosted code
   Host CMP scripts on your own domain rather than relying on a third-party CDN. That shaves milliseconds off load time and helps stabilize metrics like LCP and CLS — critical for both SEO and ad performance.
4. Consent logging
   Keep detailed records. Timestamps, user decisions, country, language, and categories toggled. While not always spelled out in LATAM laws, this level of logging is a best practice and aligns with the proof of authorization duty under Colombian law. Regulators in Argentina and Mexico can also request evidence of consent, so robust records strengthen accountability.
5. geo-targeting
   Adjust strictness depending on country. Colombia requires strict opt-in (no tracking until explicit consent), while Argentina and Mexico offer more flexibility. In Argentina, the AAIP has signaled that non-essential cookies should wait for consent. In Mexico, tacit consent is still recognized for non-sensitive data, but the 2025 reform signals a narrower scope and stricter requirements for express consent.
6. Multilingual support
   Maintain Spanish variants tuned for local audiences — es-AR for Argentina and es-MX for Mexico. Keep copy short, plain, and mobile-friendly. For example, “Aceptar” and “Rechazar” should appear with equal prominence.

The goal isn’t just compliance — it’s a setup that works fast, records everything, and respects local rules without adding friction for users.

CookieScript for LATAM Markets: Performance and Compliance

The implementation playbook shows what’s required. CookieScript delivers those requirements out of the box, tuned for Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico.

Automatic blocking and third-party control

Non-essential scripts and Third-Party Cookies are blocked until the visitor gives consent. Combined with automatic script blocking, this keeps trackers silent by default and prevents gaps in enforcement.

Self-hosted, async, lightweight code

Runs from your own domain, loads asynchronously, and adds minimal weight — built to keep pages fast and Core Web Vitals intact.

geo-targeting and localization

Country rules are applied automatically: strict opt-in for Colombia, consent-first for non-essential cookies in Argentina, and Mexico’s hybrid tacit/express model under the 2025 reform. Banners can adapt in 42 languages, including es-AR and es-MX, and stay consistent across sites with Cookie Banner sharing.

Consent logs and user records

Every decision is stored with timestamps, user actions, geo and language data, and category toggles. These user consent records are exportable and audit-ready for the AAIP, SIC, or Mexico’s future supervisory authority.

Integrations and adtech alignment

Direct support for Google Consent Mode v2 and IAB TCF 2.2, with the option to pass GPP signals where supported. This ensures GA4, Google Ads, Meta, and programmatic partners can process consent signals correctly.

Monitoring and reporting

Monthly automatic scans detect new cookies and scripts, while advanced reporting gives a clear view of compliance status.

No dark patterns

Equal-prominence Aceptar/Rechazar buttons, accessible layouts, and full customization ensure banners are compliant and user-friendly.

The result is a setup that implements the LATAM playbook automatically, blocks what it should, and keeps everything logged and auditable without adding latency or design headaches.

In 2025, CookieScript earned its fourth consecutive leader badge on G2, the peer review platform, and was recognized as the best CMP on the market for the entire year.

Conclusion

The regulatory picture in Latin America is converging on GDPR-style consent. In Argentina, businesses should expect the AAIP to scrutinize any Cookie Consent banner in Argentina that lacks clear choices or transparency.

In Colombia, the SIC has already issued fines in cookies cases, so Colombia SIC cookies enforcement is a real compliance risk, not a theory. And in Mexico, the 2025 cookie reform under the LFPDPPP means that tacit consent is narrowing, and banners must reflect stricter obligations.

At the same time, platforms like Google, Meta, and programmatic partners are aligning on global standards such as Consent Mode v2 and IAB frameworks. For LATAM businesses, the formula is simple: keep banners fast, local, and easy to understand, give users real options, and maintain audit-ready logs.

Done right, consent management isn’t just about avoiding fines — it builds trust with users and keeps marketing measurement intact.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Argentina’s AAIP require prior consent for cookies under Law 25.326?

The AAIP has indicated that non-essential cookies should wait for user consent, though Argentina’s rules are not as strict as Colombia’s. CookieScript handles this by automatically blocking cookies and scripts until consent and by applying GEO-targeting, so banners for Argentina follow AAIP guidance without extra coding.

How does Colombia’s SIC interpret “previo, expreso e informado” consent for cookies?

The SIC expects explicit, prior, and informed consent before any identifiers load. A banner with only “accept” would fail. CookieScript enforces strict opt-in for Colombian visitors, while also logging timestamps, categories, country, and language to meet the SIC’s requirement for proof of authorization.

What changes in Mexico’s 2025 LFPDPPP reform mean for consent banners?

The reform narrows the use of tacit consent and expands when express consent is required, especially for tracking and sensitive data. With CookieScript, banners for Mexico can show es-MX copy, an “Aviso de Privacidad” link, and equal prominence accept/reject buttons, ensuring compliance with the updated model.

How does Google Consent Mode v2 tagging work in LATAM markets?

Even though it’s not a legal requirement in LATAM, enabling Consent Mode v2 prevents data loss in GA4 and Google Ads. CookieScript passes consent states directly into Consent Mode (e.g., ad_user_data, ad_personalization) so reporting stays accurate without manual tag rewrites.

Is IAB TCF 2.2 or GPP relevant in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico?

TCF 2.2 applies only to EU/UK users, but GPP supports US and Canada and may add LATAM strings in the future. CookieScript already integrates with IAB TCF 2.2 and can pass GPP signals, so publishers are prepared if LATAM frameworks are adopted.

How do es-AR and es-MX language variants affect banner UX?

Users trust banners that use local language, not generic Spanish. CookieScript supports 42 languages, including both es-AR and es-MX, and provides an easy way to add a revocation link so users can withdraw consent later — a requirement under GDPR and increasingly in LATAM.