On one hand, the data harvesting targeted by cookie laws and associated privacy stuff is important and legislators/regulators are right to target it.
OTOH, effectiveness is pretty marginal. There have been some (minor) gains on disclosure. Somewhat better progress on data selling/sharing/security. But, no real gains on consent, which is a big part of the regulatory effort and this specific case. Between dark patterns, take-it-or-leave it propositions and predatory defaults... I don't think most people have a more censenting relationship with amazon or google than before.
Regulators (also prosecutors, often) tend to focus enforceability on easy to prosecute, legible stuff. "Must contain small print" rules. This is how we end up with such meticulous small print norms for advertising pharmaceuticals, financial products and other regulated industries.
Fines themselves do not deter profitability monsters like this and the "fix" is going to be an update to the popup, small print, naming of buttons and other things that don't really matter much outside of a legalistic perspective.
I'm all for the goals of these efforts. Consent. Privacy. Non-abusive relationships with companies generally. That said, I'm worried that most of the regulatory enforcement efforts are focused on technicalities without reference to real world achievements.