Is there any evidence that this law is achieving the goals it was designed to tackle? If not, is there any reason it still exists? Why don't laws have to continually justify themselves as a matter of procedure?
Do sites stop tracking you if you reject the cookies?
Some do, some don’t.
Is the goal still valid.
Yes.
I am convinced these laws have just made my life and the Internet marginally worse, with no measurable positive impact.
Still too few just show a simple „Reject All“ button.
And they ignored things like DNT in the browser on purpose.
So if someone made the Internet is worse it’s them and they successfully shifted the blame.
I'm willing to accept that some amount of personal data is being sold less, at least by some market participants. I'm still not sure how I could possibly measure even the tiniest improvement in my life, though.
Before the law most didn’t even know how much the get tracked.
And you misunderstand something, the law doesn’t improve you life it prevents it from getting worse.
Just look what happens when companies know everything about you
https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/17/loose-flapping-ends/#luig...
Exploitation beyond your wildest nightmares.
That’s what those laws try to protect you from
What I’m 100% sure of is that the UX of the web has been made worse, and I don’t think it’s sufficiently acknowledged.
The only ones ignoring it completely are either dodgy companies, or the clueless. The companies exercising malicious compliance are now (quite rightly) increasingly seen as dodgy and need to up their game if they want to become respectable.
The days of not protecting user data are over.
For example, my insurance company can no longer get away with selling my details to financing companies behind my back. Such shenanigans are no more in the UK and EU thanks to the GDPR.
I am not sure what OP asks. They should make their request more specific, what they want evidence for.