It's a myth that the internet is about "information" that has no power to do any harm. Anything that can be beneficial must, by definition, have the power to change whatever you consider reality, and almost that power can have negative consequences as well as positive ones.
Here, we're talking data and privacy, and it's commonly accepted fact that the disclosure of personal data can be harmful. Countries want to protect their citizen from such harms. Hence regulation.
> , there is no good rational to put the burden on the business. It is much more sound and natural to either put it on the consumer, a business may be visited by nationals from hundreds of juridisction, while a consumer will only visit 1 or 2 businesses
This seems completely, and obviously, be the opposite of reality as I experience it, as both a consumer and startup founder. Businesses have repeated transactions of similar types and products. Since there are fewer businesses than consumers, they also have more resources, and locating any burdens of transactions that occur once per country is vastly more efficient.
A company like Facebook has a theoretical upper limit of a little less than 200 jurisdictions to consider, using billions in revenue. Their customers would have to the same, only they number in the billions, and have few resources nor structures for sharing this burden (except, of course, their governments).
> while a consumer will only visit 1 or 2 businesses.
I'm pretty sure I interact with dozens of businesses every day.