You don't need proof you just need some sound reasoning about the trends. If it were as effective as you claim, progression in this area would have halted full stop.
Ask yourself how long have those consumer laws been in effect.
Has this technology problem progressed during that time (increased or decreased).
Have the fines against the large tech companies actually been collected and were they sufficient to curb that behavior or are they still being administrated or adjudicated (decades later)?
Have the large tech companies provided all of the information they collect for review (including the intermediates they generate from processing for derivation internally, in a way that discloses all the ways they use it), or did they only provide a plausible alternative, or just the base information collected without explanation. Do you have a way to prove its the former and not the latter?
I'm sure consumer law has been effective at eliminating the provable abuses domestically. If they were effective internationally, why would the problem be progressing to ever more complicated ways of ubiquitous tracking (which are against that law), or even domestically for those multinationals.
Its business as usual and these people know centralized power structures suffer structurally from corruption and malign influence, and as a market force they exploit that.
There's enough money in people's futures that no fine will actually solve the issue because fraud gets baked into the process. Privacy, communication, and agency are what largely compose people's future.
Due process from corporate sovereignty guarantees they can draw it out as long as they need to while continuing to make money off their actions, both increasing costs to regulatory (as a resource drain), and increasing revenue.
The real cost is borne on either the individual or on the public, and corporations have incentive to lie in ways that are difficult or impossible to prove. A lie of omission, is a lie.
In my opinion, for certain critical societal protections, its necessary to have a guilty by default, for 'people' whose only possible motive is profit incentive. The corporations or the firm are considered people in most locales, but they only adjust behavior based on profit or future profit (through monopoly).
Placing the burden of proof on the company to prove they are complying, instead of compliant with good faith protections by default, would eliminate most benefits they might receive from deceit, or lying through omission.