With the extraordinary claims, the extraordinary evidence usually needs to directly pertain to the claims.

It is not "extraordinary claims require other similar extraordinary things to have happened in the past". That is not evidence for your claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yes.

The point is that "corporations will monetize data" isn't an extraordinary claim.

No, that is an ordinary claim, and one that has plenty of ordinary evidence to back it up.

This company will monetize this data is also an ordinary claim (from history), but similarly needs evidence. "Companies have monetized similar in the past" is not evidence they'll do it in this case.

If you're a gambler, you should absolutely use that fact to inform your betting, but it's not evidence.

I'm not a fan of "regulators must allow actual harm before intervening" here.

There's plenty of ordinary evidence that corporations decline to monetize some data.

Example: https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465

"Advertisers can’t use personal hardship categories to target ads to users or to promote advertisers’ products or services. See below for specific examples of what we don't allow."

"Examples: Treatments for chronic health conditions like diabetes or arthritis, treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling services for mental health issues like depression or anxiety, medical devices for sleep apnea like CPAP machines, over-the-counter medications for yeast infections, information about how to support your autistic child"