You're not understanding the analogy. What does a user get out of using Google's services? They get access to a suite of products (search, email, cloud storage, online productivity apps, videos, and so on) that are maintained by a rather expensive group of employees and run on a rather expensive collection of hardware. When you use those services you pay for them by letting Google collect information about your use of those services. The value you get from those services is often intangible (you watched a cat video or looked through a photo gallery of your sister's new kid), though sometimes monetary (you don't have to pay an ISP for an email address if you use gmail.) When you choose to no longer use the services and demand that Google delete all the data they have gathered are you going to return that intangible value and pay them for the money you saved by using their systems? How would you do return the experience of watching a stupid cat video? It's exactly like eating a meal but insisting the restaurant give up the value, i.e. the money, that they got from you.
But still, the analogy is flawed then. If I give the restaurant money, the way the use they money afterwards doesn't affect me. They cannot take more money from my bank account or from my pocket. The only thing they can do is invest it and make more money, but it does not affect me.
When I give my data, the way they use my data – after I've "eaten there" – can affect my life. They can send me spam, they can put me into database of "people with suspicious behavior", ...
The law is more about giving a second chance: I could have given information in the past, and you could have sent me commercial emails in the past. But now I've realized I've made a mistake and I don't want you do that anymore.
If you want an analogy to real life: it's more about giving 5 years of jail to a burglar. They committed a mistake, so they have to pay for it, but they should have the right to get out after having paid, and live a normal honest life.
How is that unfair?
Google generates money not by collecting data but by showing targeted ads (they need personal information to do good job at targeting).
They actually do provide option to opt out, remove information about you but they make a quite a hassle to opt out and block features that could otherwise work, to encourage you to opt back in. For example you don't agree for Google to your location history? Fine, you don't have location history in Google Maps even for places you searched 5 seconds ago.
Anyway, to turn things around, yes they provide you services for free, and you're paying for using them by have targeted ads, if you decide to not use those services anymore you can't get an offline version of their tools that doesn't phone home, so why should they be allowed to keep your data in perpetuity?
The fair result of a person choosing to stop using a company's service is that they get to stop paying for that service, i.e. Google doesn't get to collect data about your current and future activities.
People truly underestimate how much information about them is actually worth.
I'm sorry the analogy is totally flawed. On one hand you have something consumable: food, on the other side that can be made eternal: data.
When making an application that collect data, you just have to make a form/button to give the ability to update/delete data. It's no more different that when you make an adult website, you have to make a page "Are you above 18?"
Sometimes, it sounds to me that people on HN don't have a problem with the law X or Y. They rather have a problem with the concept of regulation in general. (See the comments on all the posts about Germany requiring Uber drivers to have a car insurance with a higher liability.)
But if you want to give an analogy to normal business, a more suitable one would be: "Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing customers to get their money back on their gift card they purchased 2 years ago"
How is that unfair?