Cookie popus appeared on EU websites only 7-ish years ago, not 20+-ish.
I should know, I live there. And I was around since a lot longer than 2002 or 2018.
Apparently in our discussion "violation" is an unfortunate word, as you seem to associate that with something bad, undesirable. (As your word "excuse" hints at.)
A "violation" is not nexessarily bad;
but feel free to use "limitation" insteadin your head, if it's easier for you...
Anyway, to the point: it doesn't matter whether something "excuses" something else or not, as this isn't about "violation" being something bad. It's entirely about the concept od 'llimiting" the amount of power that an individual in a poaition of relative advantage can exert over another individual.
We already have those kind of limitations in place elsewhere in contract related laws, and everyone agrees that they're good (e.g. when signing a contract under duress, or when requiring that a contact not be one-sided only).
OTOH everyone also agrees that there should be no limitation when the contract is balanced and there's no power gradient, e.g. when buying a benign pack of candy in a candy store.
What we have here is something in between: nobody is "under duress" strictly speaking, but the situation is anything but balanced. Somebody is (ab)using their position of relative power.
So now the discussion can't be about the principle of it - we've already established that, either way, the principles are sound and within the realm of something we already do.
Instead it's about where to draw the line.
As such, your comment from earlier does nothing to clarify or sustain a point.
"Freedom of contract" isn't holy you know. It is already "violated" by a lot of other provisions deaigned tomprotect those who are at a systematic disadvantage.
This has nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production a.k.a. socialism.
We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher