This is how you get statutory warning labels and nutrtion information labels on packages.

Because these folks always want to do the least legal thing allowed by law.

> The switches start out gray and become black when toggled.

Rant: That type of slider-switch is an inferior usurper of the classic tickbox, that rode in on a wave of touch-screen-ification. Oh, it can be done well, sometimes, but it's just far-too-easy to do it badly.

In this case (useless colors, no intrinsic text labels, etc.) I think the remaining rule/clue is "Move the dot-nub towards whatever you want." So moving right is indicating you like the "We track you" text, while moving left indicates some kind of disagreement.

_____________________

> It feels intentionally misleading.

The "Accept All" button is worse:

1. It abuses UI conventions of position and color that belong to a "Proceed with what is shown" button.

2. Likewise, the text-label is ambiguous: It could mean "Accept All [of the choices which I've made and can see]"... But instead it means "Reject whatever is on-screen, and replace all choices with 'accept' cookies."

3. When it does erase/reset all choices made, it does so in a secretive way by also submitting and vanishing the dialog. The user never has any opportunity to realize that the machine implicitly flipped all choices to the right-most position.

Any one of these might be an innocent mistake, but all three sins together are a dark-pattern.

Just block cookies, and it doesn't matter whether you consent or not.

Of course, paradoxically, these consent banners need to put a cookie to remember that you didn't consent to cookies, so you might need a plugin like uBlock to block the banner as well.