> enforcement is a long way off, and unlikely to scale. Companies want cookies because it gives them an expected economic profit. The expected profit minus the

> enforcement is a long way off, and unlikely to scale. Companies want cookies because it gives them an expected economic profit. The expected profit minus the expected fine (risk of a fine times its expected size) is the expected net. To make this equation result in a negative net you can both increase the risk of being fined, or the size of the expected fine. So first of all, there should be a few massive (As in company-ending) fines, and they shouldn't be for some unusual or extreme violation - they should be for common practices such as using a common cookie banner service that blatantly misinterprets the legal text. Next, the scaling of the enforcement. It's difficult to scale, but considering how much money could actually be made from these fines, it does seem possible to have a massive self-funding organization do this. Also, quite a few companies probably right now think something like "Well, without tracking ads we'd be out of business anyway and I don't see how we can change business model to subscriptions or similar, so let's just try to keep using dark patterns for as long as we can rather than just ceasing operations". To counter this, you'd need to add a factor to the equation that makes busineesses think "Ok, we should probably just get off the internet rather than use these dark patterns to keep margins". I'm not sure what would push the thinking in that direction, but probably personal legal responsibility rather than simply financial risk (i.e. risk of personal fines or prison for decisionmakers).