This assumes you know all the personal data they have about you beforehand. Also, you seem to be implying that there is no benefit to knowing how risky companies are being with the data they do have.
If your data is stores in certain jurisdictions that have difference laws than you expected, that could increase the risk your data bight be accessed in ways you assumed illegal (different countries have different rules).
For a very simple example, LiveJournal is now owned and operated entirely out of Russia. It didn't start that way. a GDPR request would presumably let you know that your data was in servers in Russia, or that the company in question did not feel the need to answer your request, in which case at lest you would know that your local laws did not apply towards it. In my eyes, both are very useful information that provides additional information about the risk of that data being accessed in a way you thought it would not beyond what you might assume of an EU company that you gave personal information.
Knowing where my data is stored is hardly a consumer protection.
Whether data is hosted in Russia or the EU it’s at risk of being stolen, exposed, and misused and the liability companies have for that has not changed (there is no liability)
> Whether data is hosted in Russia or the EU it’s at risk of being stolen, exposed, and misused and the liability companies have for that has not changed (there is no liability)
So your contention is that the same risk exists no matter the storage location?
Bad things can happen anywhere. I submit that certain locations are more prone to certain situations. Knowing your information is being stored in a certain location at a minimum gives you the opportunity to deny additional information from yourself (stop using the service).
Since this discussion has regressed to the point where you're essentially arguing that additional information has no utility, and I fundamentally disagree with that point, I'm not sure the point of continuing. We're just repeating our points with different examples.
If your data is stores in certain jurisdictions that have difference laws than you expected, that could increase the risk your data bight be accessed in ways you assumed illegal (different countries have different rules).
For a very simple example, LiveJournal is now owned and operated entirely out of Russia. It didn't start that way. a GDPR request would presumably let you know that your data was in servers in Russia, or that the company in question did not feel the need to answer your request, in which case at lest you would know that your local laws did not apply towards it. In my eyes, both are very useful information that provides additional information about the risk of that data being accessed in a way you thought it would not beyond what you might assume of an EU company that you gave personal information.