We can reasonably assume that bunny.net doesn't also correlate, cross-link, and permanently store which sites our IPs visit, for the purposes of enhanced ad delivery. Which Google does: that's literally what every single service they offer does in addition to "the thing you need that service for". Even sites that don't offer Google ads or Google analytics _still provide Google with behavioural data linked to you_ by using Google fonts.
So no, this is not one of those examples, this is a great example of someone setting up a service to remove all those free, extra data points that Google harvests. Today it's fonts. Maybe tomorrow, it's the rest of their "it's not explicitly Google Analytics" offerings.
I don't think we can reasonably assume either of those things. You're speculating about both Google Fonts and Bunny fonts based on very little information.
No, and yes, respectively. If you consider "Google recording and monteizing on CORS URL requests" speculation, I'm not sure you know much about the company we're talking about here. They've been sued and fined over tracking quite a number of times.
Do we know whether bunny.net is any better? In the abstract, no we don't, but we're not dealing in abstracts, so we actually do because of where they operate. A real European operation (not an international company with EU presence but an HQ outside of direct EU jurisdiction) is by default quite a bit better at not violating GDPR, and runs the actual risk of being fined into financial insolvency (rather than getting a few hundred million slap on wrist that a multibillion dollar company goes "pff, whatever, let legal sort it out" to).
By virtue of Google's track record, and by virtue of where this new service is located, and the track record of EU based services with regards to privacy compared to their US counterparts:
Yes, we can _very_ reasonably assume both of those things.
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who make self-validating proclamations about what Google does or doesn't do, without having any information to support their positions.
I guess I'll say what I always say: Look at the public privacy statements for Google, or for a particular Google product. If you have any evidence that Google does anything different from what's in that statement, contact Google and there will definitely be people interested in figuring out what's going on and fixing it.
So no, this is not one of those examples, this is a great example of someone setting up a service to remove all those free, extra data points that Google harvests. Today it's fonts. Maybe tomorrow, it's the rest of their "it's not explicitly Google Analytics" offerings.