The law seems to make no distinction. As a user, I view every cookie notice as pointless and annoying -- obviously you use cookies, and obviously I'm okay with it. If the notice were specifically about cross-site tracking, that would be a meaningful notice, and opting out would make sense. Session cookies, though? You're warning me about session cookies?
If I could set a blanket "I accept cookies" in my browser settings and have those notices all go away,. I would in a heartbeat.
And, in fact, I DO have a blanket "I accept cookies" setting in my browser. Sadly, I'm still forced to manually opt-in on each stupid website.
Ideally, we would distinguish between different "types" of cookies (and I believe the law requires you do this), and we would have settings specifically for these in browsers (which we sort of do in a limited fashion), and we would simply make it a setting defaulted to "ask". show notice only if the user has manually changed the setting from "ask" to "accept" for the types of cookies used on a site. Boom, useful and non-annoying cookie notices.
Until we do that, it's a bad system, and a useless law.