My thinking for the Colorado mom-pop liquor store example is: Texas is a state which allows beer (no liquor with an ABV above wine, I believe). Liquor stores t

My thinking for the Colorado mom-pop liquor store example is: Texas is a state which allows beer (no liquor with an ABV above wine, I believe). Liquor stores there seem to do just fine with the caveat that they have to be "real liquor stores". Meaning, they can't just sell Coors and Budweiser, they have to specialize and carry the newest/hottest craft beers and employ a staff that can give recommendations. If I wanted a Miller High Life or a well known craft beer like Dogfishhead I would just go to HEB (large grocery store chain) otherwise if I wanted more of a selection I'd hit up a "real" liquor store. So yeah, sure those mom-pop places will go out of business if they don't adapt. But, hey, if you run a shitty business, you should expect it to fail, right? Analogously, if there are products that offer the same utility of FB/Google/etc with the added benefit of not farming out everyone's personal information, they should totally be bankrupted. They're making a worse product. That being said, me arguing against your analogy falls apart here. Laws being passed in Colorado means, mom-pop's will be shuttered because other businesses will canabalize them with better services. In the case of passing laws for digital privacy, Google, et. al, would be condemned because their products would become illegal, not because there's a better competitor putting them out of business. That being said, I'm sure they'd have some sort of timeline to change their products to fit the laws. My albeit hazy understanding of the EU privacy shield laws leads me to believe that was the case there. tl;dr: I'd personally be fine seeing Google/et. al being forced to adapt their products due to "privacy as a right" regulation changes. Within reason of course. I think they should have a period of time where they can make their products fit such regulations.