@mttaggart within big tech the opposition mostly came from Apple and Microsoft who would bear the most burden from adding AVS to their products. Meta and Google would actually stand to benefit because their business models heavily leverage the surveillance economy and they are well positioned to be in control of enforcement in the role of "AVS Service Providers"

Furthermore, regulatory capture is the centrepiece of their business strategy, and the opposition to the California law was most likely not over the concept itself but the fact it was state-level, and capturing a patchwork or state regulations is more work than a single federal-level system.

The main thing big tech wants is to make compliance extremely difficult for smaller and newer competition and to ensure that penalties for mishandling the collection, retention and maintenance of personal data remain solely monetary and small enough that they remain just another "cost of doing business".

But yeah "mandated AVS" is Manufactured Consent
@cwebber