No, not quite. The law is specific that a voluntary consent in this situation is irrelevant. It is, however, handled under another clause in the law which we fall straight into. Which is good, otherwise I was going to start writing letters to my congressional reps, because I feel without that clause the law would be completely unreasonable. I might even be able to talk about it, but I am not 100% sure if I can, because of another statement in the law, and I feel it is just not worth it.
I got misinformation when I discovered that one specific user required the law apply to them, and the information I got was because I knew about that specific user, the law then applied to all users. This is not correct. It remains specific to that user. I had already addressed the issue, as defined by the law, with that user before I even knew of the law.
You can probably figure out what this is about if you think about it, but the users this law is targeted for would be unlikely to understand it, unless I really spelled it out for them.