> Recent laws like the cookie regulations or GDPR are made for the purpose to stop the spread of free information and favor regulatory bodies and the already estabilished companies.

How are the cookie regulations made to stop the spread of free information? GDPR explicitly restricts certain kinds of information. Things that you would consider private and not want to be leaked to the public, like your tax documents, and your healthcare records.

From what I can see, it's America that's the problem, with things like TPP. America is generally more crony-capitalist than Europe, even though some European countries do have crony-capitalism, they're usually good at fending it off.

Globalism isn't inherently a bad thing for the individual and workers, however. It lends huge power to the worker to strike and obtain better conditions, as you can see:

But the reality is the very opposite. When 3,000 General Motors brake
parts workers went on strike in Dayton, Ohio, in 1996, they shut down
General Motors operations across the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Over 125,000 General Motors workers were laid off within days. The
strike cost the company around $45 million a day, and the Clinton government
screamed at both sides to settle.

When an almost general strike took place in Denmark, Saab was forced
to stop car production in Sweden because it ran out of essential components
from Danish suppliers. The assembly of Saab’s convertible motors in
Finland was also forced to stop. Volvo also announced that its production
lines in Sweden and the Netherlands had been very badly affected.

In 1988, when Ford workers in Britain struck, they brought the whole
of Ford Europe to a halt within three or four days.

Because of the multinationals, the impact of an individual group of
workers can be much greater than ever before. One need only compare
the above examples with the first general strike in history that took
place in England in 1832. Then workers had to move from one factory
to another to “turn over” the workers.

Behind the theory of globalisation there is complete mechanical formal
logic. The dialectic is completely foreign to it. The logic of the
globalisation theory is similar to that which motivated the Pentagon when
it launched its war on Vietnam. They were convinced that the United
States military machine was omnipotent and that the Vietnamese were relatively
powerless. And the argument went like this. In the 19th century Britain
beat India into submission. The military machine of the United States
in the 1960s was incomparably stronger than the military machine of Britain
in the 19th century. At the same time Vietnam is a much smaller country
with a much smaller population than India. If Britain could win in the
19th century, the United States could certainly have a walkover in the
20th century.

Looked at dialectically the picture is exactly the opposite. In the Indian
uprising of 1857, when a British soldier was killed, how much damage did
it do to Britain? How much is a British soldier, a worker in uniform, worth?
Let us say £100. The American military machine is in comparably greater.
A US aeroplane is worth, let us say, $1 million. What a temptation for
a Vietnamese to throw a hand grenade at it.

(https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/2000/millennium...)