It is your opinion that the law is not "bad" because you view the positive intentions of the law as bigger than the negative unintended harmful effects is has..

It is your opinion that the law is not "bad" because you view the positive intentions of the law as bigger than the negative unintended harmful effects is has.. on people exactly like the OP. Your points don't "make the law right". In whose view? Right or wrong for whom? In his example he listed all the ways he is handling user data in a respectful way. And yet, he is still harmed by this law. That the VP and President may be doing their jobs wrong (in your view) is no recourse for OP, he is harmed all the same. And ... are they doing their jobs wrong? At the end of the day, they are limiting their risk. What threshold of risk of harm to their business and livelihoods would you feel is an acceptable tradeoff to comply?