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?