[pornel]

FB isn't required to operate in the EU, but if they want to, they're required to follow EU law. It's FB's problem to find a way to be profitable while following the law. It's normal that companies have to find a way to live with the cost of regulations, and if they can't, leave the market or go bust.

For example, manufacturers are required to avoid use of harmful substances, and follow health and safety regulations, even though it'd be more profitable not to. Sweatshops and child labor would be more profitable, but these business models were rejected by the governments too.

[sershe]

I was not asking about the letter of the law, that's obvious from TFA. I was asking about how it is fair in any way. It's kinda like a user comes into my store and I say "I can give you a haircut bundled with you giving me $30, yes/no", the user says "no, I'll only pay you $10", and EU says I am still required to give them the same haircut with the same quality.

Ofc if I/FB choose to shut down or alter my service for everyone under these conditions, the other angle is that EU govt has decided that it knows better than mere proles who want to explicitly consent to the exchange. It's less like manufacturers avoiding harmful substances, and more like e.g. govt of China requiring Apple to alter Maps to display "correct" information under threat of a ban.