> Companies were at least forced to separate what were essential cookies from non-essential ones.
The question here isn't if it cost companies money. It did. It's whether it was a good law. It wasn't, because compliance generated no benefit to anyone.
You seem to be saying that it was a good law because it could have been a good law if written differently.
>because compliance generated no benefit to anyone.
if you don't value privacy over an extra click or two, then I can see why you'd think that. But if that's the case we wouldn't also be so adamant against mass surveillance. Which is it?
The question here isn't if it cost companies money. It did. It's whether it was a good law. It wasn't, because compliance generated no benefit to anyone.
You seem to be saying that it was a good law because it could have been a good law if written differently.