No. The cookie banner handles the legal consent capture and must remain. The bot is a layer that helps visitors who click 'learn more' or who come to the cookie policy page directly to actually understand the disclosures. The two work together: banner for consent, bot for comprehension. Treating them as alternatives gets the legal posture wrong and reduces the usability win.

SleekAI reads your cookie policy page on every request, including the cookie table. Add a row to the table for a new vendor (Hotjar, Intercom, a new ad network), save the page, and the next chat reflects the new entry. If the table is rendered from a custom post type or a structured block, the bot reads the underlying data directly. We recommend keeping the cookie table on a single canonical page rather than scattered across blog posts.

Yes. The system prompt can include the URL or selector of your consent panel - OneTrust, Cookiebot, Iubenda, a self-hosted CMP, or a custom Tailwind banner. The bot then ends relevant answers with 'change this in Manage preferences' or links directly. We recommend the direct link, because visitors often abandon when they have to hunt for the panel themselves.

GDPR (and ePrivacy) treats non-essential cookies as requiring opt-in consent before they load. CCPA frames similar behaviour as 'sale' or 'sharing' with an opt-out right. The legal mechanics differ enough that a single bot answering both audiences can sound confused. Use display conditions to scope an EU bot to EU traffic and a California bot to California, each loading the right policy framing and the right rights.

Probably yes for non-essential chat features. The widget loads, initialises a conversation, and may store context in local storage. Treat it like any other non-essential third party: document it on your cookie policy as a vendor entry, scope its load to post-consent if your CMP framework requires it, and respect 'reject all' by deferring the load until a visitor explicitly opens the chat. Some teams treat the chat as functional (loaded by default), which is defensible if the chat is core to the site's purpose.

Yes. If your policy describes how you honour GPC (and increasingly you should - California treats GPC as a valid opt-out signal under CCPA), the bot will quote that section and confirm the visitor's signal is being honoured. For Do Not Track, the practical position most policies take is that DNT lacks a uniform standard and is not honoured, which the bot can state honestly rather than awkwardly.

Two patterns work. The simpler one: edit the cookie table on the policy page, and rely on WordPress revisions for the audit trail. The more rigorous one: keep the cookie table in a structured block or custom field and version it via Git through Agent Sync, so every cookie change has a commit. Either pattern means a regulator's question about 'what was disclosed on this date' has a clean answer.

Yes. The model replies in whatever language the visitor writes in. Cookie categories - strictly necessary, functional, analytics, marketing - translate naturally. Vendor names remain in their canonical form (Google Analytics, not 'Google Analytique'), which is also what regulators expect. For sites with a translated policy page, scope the right language version per locale and the bot will quote the matching translation.