Intellectual property protection is opt-in. It requires the individual to enforce his rights before a court in the relevant jurisdiction. The government only facilitates registration and adjudication. Courts don't force individuals into global protection schemes against claimant's own will.
Whatever the expected merits were, GDPR's existence as a policy has been of little more use than a protectionist beating stick in service of the EU. It gave the EU the power to dictate how websites are to be designed. Non-Europeans with business interests inside the EU had no say or representation in the matter. Governments shouldn't claim universal jurisdiction over the Internet, whatever their reasoning for such claims might be.
Yes in that people already have that agency to sue. I'm sure you've heard of a class action lawsuits.
No in that I don't approve of the GDPR prescribing what constitutes a privacy violation rather than leaving such deliberations to contracts and courts.
The GDPR, on the other hand, presupposes a global positive right to privacy irrespective of national sovereignty or contractual agreement to the contrary and that any alleged violation from any point on the planet carries with it a presumption of guilt. A regular complaint on this forum is that the US regularly oversteps it's bounds via legislation like the CLOUD ACT. I don't see why it's any less of a concern when the EU does it.
But you dont like that your users data is protected by GDPR, so that you cant take it without permission? Thats unnessesary regulation holding back business?
Does not sound like it has anything to do with regulation, it sounds like you want the fovernment to give you an advantage.