[wjnc]

If you can get judges to rule on costs in favor of the plaintiff (quite usual in my EU jurisdiction) then there quickly arises an incentive for cooperation. All you need is a few high profile wins. Those companies would probably start sharing by default and / or taking opt-out more seriously after that. "It's your data. Fight it!" (How's that for a slogan. And I know it's not grammatically correct.)

It's analogous to the operation of those lawyers asking a few thousand euros for unlicensed use of pictures. That's legit as well here. Legal reverse GDPR extortion. Gives us insight into these customers, who've given us power of attorney or we sue. Lose and pay our bills. Win and we are done and the customers pay a much smaller fee (a person, but hopefully adding up to a reasonable fee).

[howard941]

> judges to rule on costs in favor of the plaintiff (quite usual in my EU jurisdiction)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think your costs are broader, include attorneys fees, and are therefore different from US costs. In US courts the prevailing party defaults to including costs when preparing the judgment order (parties do almost all of the drafting in US courts) but "costs" is taken to literally mean court costs as in filing fees and a very limited menu of closely related expenses such as costs pertaining to service of process, court clerk photocopying charges, and the like.

[wjnc]

Yup, broader costs. Losers often pay quite a substantial part of the legal fees of the winner. A comparatively extreme example: in liability cases with injuries, the judge will often allow quite broad legal costs (about 25% of total claims is legal costs). It's an extreme example since registered attorneys cannot work on that basis, but goes to show that substantial costs to the loser does happen.

[howard941]

Thank you