Wrong.

First, you're forcing anyone with a web presence that currently has cookies (and that's probably most of us) to spend time and developer resources addressing this -- time that we could spend really servicing our customers.

Second, you're still not going to get their informed consent. What makes you think that somebody's going to actually read the site's warning (assuming that there is one, and that it's written well enough to be comprehensible)? If they don't already care enough about web privacy issues, they're not going to take the time to read about them now.

Third, the regulation completely forbids a potential business model built around targeted advertising. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that business model. It may be distasteful to someone sharing your values, but there are certainly a lot of people who don't care (and there's no fundamental reason that they ought to care). You're preventing people from doing business one way not because it's wrong, but simply because you find it distasteful.

I don't accept your premise that "most of us" are using cookies.

In any case, many sites don't need cookies or similar technologies at all, and most of those that do only need them for session data like whether a user is logged in or what is in their shopping cart. Such use is exempt from these new regulations anyway.

I find it interesting that you have such a strong view about regulations that require some trivial effort on the part of legitimate businesses, while at the same time having no problem with a business model that is fundamentally built on harassing all users and making their browsing experience worse. How is your position not hypocritical?

> You're preventing people from doing business one way not because it's wrong, but simply because you find it distasteful.

While you, on the other hand, are suggesting there is nothing wrong with a busines model based on practices that consumers widely dislike but currently cannot do anything about.

The reason we have consumer protection laws is precisely so consumers win and abusive businesses lose in this sort of situation, and while I question the details of these new regulations, I see nothing wrong with the principle behind them.

If what you say is correct (that users don't care), they'll just click on Accept, right? And you have their consent. You've given them the option to make an informed choice. Your duty has been performed.

> Third, the regulation completely forbids a potential business model built around targeted advertising.

It forbids potential business models built around targeted advertising not based on visitor knowledge and consent (so it forbids business models that wilfully violate the privacy of site visitors without their knowledge, and without their consent). Again, if users don't care (as you point out), the gaining of consent isn't going to be an issue, so these business models will retain their viability.

So given your statement that users don't care about third party tracking or profiling, none of what you outline are really issues.