That’s cynical and edgy, but misses the mark. There are several reasons why rules tend to be more specific about the outcomes than the ways to get there.

This decreases the attack surface for loopholes. What is desirable is the end result, not the technical details.

The law is actually clearer because the intent is clearly spelt out. The point of the law is to protect privacy, not cover every screen with cookies banners.

This leaves room for different implementations and flexibility (yay, competition).

It makes the law more resilient, because it does not need to be re-engineered every time anything happens. 10 years from now, even if cookies and banners have completely vanished, the core of the law will still be relevant.

This is why debates about the spirit and the letter of laws translate poorly across the Atlantic. Different places have different approaches.