Yeah, I wouldn't vouch for a US court, but lucky me I'm in the EU, where the answer "the maximum amount of data collection and monetization of that data they can get away with" is not compliant to the requirements of GDPR.

So even IF that would be a sufficient answer in a court of US, it would not be sufficient in a court of an EU country.

--> Hence my point on how the overall message was diluted too much.

See, you may look at all this as "nothing can be done anyway, so let's bunch it all together and rant about it as emotionally as possible". But I look at it as "this is all potential evidence that a law was either already broken or needs to have a loophole closed"

But you won't get any of this done by spraying all over how normal this is and how everyone does it anyway. You get this done with a precise shot at ONE of them, concise enough to pin them down while aiming at the next one.