Do they realise that, like government regulation, that would leave discretion over enforcement to a third party, e.g., a prosecutor.
It is possible to have a regulatory framework and a criminal code aimed at Big Tech that is, in practice, never enforced, rarely enforced, or enforced arbitrarily.
Giving users a private remedy against tech companies, letting them initiate actions in response to wrongdoing, does not mean anyone has to forgo democratic government, government regulation, law enforcement, and so on.
It is just something that as far as I can see is not getting any focus in popular discussions about the evils of Big Tech. We watch as people bring factually-supported cases over large scale privacy violations but they always fail in the courts because there is no law that is truly adequate to bring them under. The existing law requires actual injury. It reflects a time before the ubiquity of computer networks, let alone the widespread practice of using them for dragnet surveillance on the public as a business model.
These type of comments seem to be common in discussions on sites like HN, perhaps because it is so easy to make them, when commenters are hidden behind keyboards. Commenters make broad, general, often philosophical statements that do not address the specific points of discussion. Comments argue about abstract notions, failing to cite specific, concerete examples. Others respond to the generalities, and a tangent is created.