This is well-meaning but actually a mistake, for it reinforces this power imbalance between two types of actors, (big) "companies" and (small) "consumers" where you could work on balancing the imbalance instead.
How? By working on systems that allow for everyone to be a first-class citizen within the system, having different capabilities arise from the relationships between actors rather than from their entry point to the system. As an example, classic big corp "identity" systems provide for exactly one identity per actor and moreover know two classes of citizen: Those that "provide identitiy", and those that get identified. This is wrong.
A proper system only provides for, essentially, transporting actors' identity claims that can then be backed by any other actor, making everyone a first-class actor. The truth of such claims then depends on the veracity of the backing to the claims.
Meaning that a passport's identity claim is only valid when backed by a recognised government (rather its avatar, if you will, within such a system), but that you only get access to Auntie Bee's party if your identity claim is backed by someone she recognises. To the system, it makes no difference. To its users, it makes quite a lot of difference. Moreover, the system only says that the claims aren't forged, whether they're any good otherwise is up to the users. And that's exactly how the division of labour for using such a system should be.
This is entirely different from the usual way, and also why, say, something like NSTIC is really a government control vehicle: It makes most ordinary users second-class citizens, and doesn't allow for multiple identities, quite unlike how most people live their daily lives. That last bit might surprise you, but it is true. You have multiple identities for all that they quite often share names. Your identity toward your spouse is quite different from your identity toward your workplace, at least for most of us, for example. Or if you're in school, your identity toward your teachers is different from your identity toward your friends. In some cases the differences can become extreme enough that you really don't want one group to even know about your identity toward another. If we're allowing the one identity per person model to become dominant, you'll get to learn the hard way just how oppressive having (to have) a facebook profile can become.
The thing is that the internet allows us to build such first-class-citizen-only systems, and moreover that we can put "zero-knowledge proofs" right at the hearts of such systems, thereby providing systems with reasonable to good privacy yet that are hard to abuse. That way, even the smallest party can deal with the largest parties on a virtually (oh the meta) equal footing. This means you don't have to fool around with laws that then need enforcement. The protection is built right into the system.
We could have this. Now that I told you, all we need is to build it.