[iamjackg]

If those companies extend their business beyond the US' jurisdiction, why do you feel they shouldn't be subject to some form of control where they operate? I'm legitimately asking. This is about something that was done within the EU to EU citizens. Why shouldn't the EU have a say?

[quocanh]

I don’t feel that, actually. I’m not sure where you got that impression - maybe straw men are easier to debate?

There are laws and then are how laws are enacted. Hint: pay attention to how homegrown EU companies are treated.

EDIT: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ Look here specifically. Sort by fine amount. Look at the companies that are being fined the hardest. It's not just the US that is being targeted. There's this island nation that recently decided they didn't want to be part of the EU...

[Macha]

The largest fines are to US tech companies, which is expected due to (a) the fines being proportionate to revenue and these being the largest companies in the world and (b) these businesses having a significant involvement in large scale tracking of users.

I think the argument of like "well the law was passed to harm US companies specifically because US companies specifically do this" ignores that this is a undesirable behaviour with significant negative externalities, so this feels a bit like complaining that encouraging green energy at the expense of fossil fuels is discriminating against Russia and the middle east.

Once we get past the tech companies the next biggest fine is for H&M, for surveillance of call center employees, not just at workstations (which is probably also not allowed), but in their private lives, disclosure of that detail with managers, and targeted harassment from that information. This seems pretty egregious, and not political retribution against the UK.

Next up are some Italian companies fined in Italy, UK companies getting fined _by the UK_, and Vodafone subsidiaries getting fined everywhere. You could argue Vodafone is a UK company being unfairly targeted, but from what I remember of coverage of the (Spanish, I think?) ruling, they're a repeat offender in this regard.

[iamjackg]

Sorry, it was not my intention to construct a strawman: maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

> a way for the EU to control US companies, extending their power beyond their jurisdiction

How are they extending their power beyond their jurisdiction, considering that this is something done in the EU to EU citizens?

[quocanh]

Because judgements are arbitrary and in practice unfairly hurts foreign companies.

There's an analogue that has happened in the U.S. Let's say that my little white town passes a law that forbids jaywalking. Protects pedestrians... Makes it easier to drive... Sensible law right? But in practice, it's the 1940's and the cops ONLY ticket black people. In practice, it's not a law against jaywalking - it's a law to drive out all the black people and make the white town inhospitable to anybody with skin tone.

GDPR claims to protect the people but is used as an economic weapon.

[danaris]

Or maybe the problem is that the US and UK also happen to be places that foster an attitude in their people that everyone else should just bow to them and do things the way they want...?