I think you're underestimating the cost of not having good regulations. Not all regulations are bad, and not all barriers (cost or otherwise) imposed by regulation is bad -- often it's been judged that the alternative has more, often externalized, costs.
What do healtcare costs and deaths look like if we removed all our environmental regulations? What's the cost in terms of people not getting treatment for things because they don't want it to be publicly know?
Regulations usually don't do what those who advocate for them say they do. They are generally created to benefit some corporations at the expense of consumers and/or other corporations.
I'm not convinced environmental regulations are a global net benefit to the environment and I can't see how privacy regulations could possibly be beneficial as customers who want privacy protections create a market demand for them. Even in the extremely unfree healthcare market in the US, provides would improve their data security if they thought people were not getting treatment because they worried about their privacy. Regulations create a false sense of security, incentivize companies to keep data breaches and past vulnerabilities secret, and make developers spend time complying with ineffective or harmful requirements instead of actually improving security.
I think one should be very sceptical of regulations and other coercive alleged solutions from governments, especially as politicians have a very strong incentive to serve the corporations who fund their campaigns rather than the voters who rarely even get to hear the name of a candidate who is not supported by corporate spacial interest and wouldn't vote for them anyway as to not "throw away their vote".
What do healtcare costs and deaths look like if we removed all our environmental regulations? What's the cost in terms of people not getting treatment for things because they don't want it to be publicly know?