That law/regulation would seem difficult for a court to uphold – e.g. a company being diligent and detailed in explaining its complicated policies, but getting dinged when someone is misled by their arbitrarily word-count-limited summary. But in any case, the example provided by the article does have a top summary [0] (it's the very prompt that the author investigates). And the individual line item settings are each summarized in a single sentence [1].
That said, the actual example summaries given seem to IMHO make a case for mandating specific and explicit language, akin the "Surgeon General's" warning text on cigarette packs, to accompany whatever euphemistic language companies continue to use. We're far enough into the Internet age to be pretty confident that the vast majority of people just do not and cannot comprehend that "We use cookies to improve the site, measure performance, understand our audience, enhance our experience and provide you with advertising based on your browsing activities" means actual tracking.
That said, the actual example summaries given seem to IMHO make a case for mandating specific and explicit language, akin the "Surgeon General's" warning text on cigarette packs, to accompany whatever euphemistic language companies continue to use. We're far enough into the Internet age to be pretty confident that the vast majority of people just do not and cannot comprehend that "We use cookies to improve the site, measure performance, understand our audience, enhance our experience and provide you with advertising based on your browsing activities" means actual tracking.
[0] http://www.conradakunga.com/blog/images/2020/12/Banner1.png
[1] http://www.conradakunga.com/blog/images/2020/12/Reuters5.png