I think it's the wording. You say "Seems it's exactly the GDPR to blame", but you could've said "the GDPR is to credit" and it would be equally true. The thing is that those two have different conotations. The first suggests that GDPR is bad (for motivating companies to follow UK law, which is bad), the second suggests that GDPR is good (for motivating companies to follow UK law, which is good).
Personally I would prefer more neutral language. Something like "As a consequence of GDPR, companies have started changing their behavior from X to Y." If you want to give the readers context you could optionally add "Y is already law in the UK, but UK prosecutors have for the most part chosen not to enforce it."