[bioemerl]

Why so?

[cccbbbaaa]

I worded my previous message poorly, but I would say that keeping a product out of a market, for what I assume are legal reasons, is the opposite of following the law. Anyway, sorry for this–I should stop arguing about semantics.

[bioemerl]

Not following the law would be releasing without privacy compliance and trying to make money off it. Blocking the EU is following the law.

[UncleEntity]

> …keeping a product out of a market, for what I assume are legal reasons, is the opposite of following the law.

That the exact definition of following the law.

[bertil]

Because it’s a large market and Google has a commercial incentive to make their offers available where they can legally do so.

[bioemerl]

Do you think they are doing this without commercial incentive in mind? I'm fairly confident they are, and they just decided the costs were not worth it in this case.

[ranger_danger]

Google would be profitable even without the entirety of the EU, and I think their decision to continue using practices (elsewhere) that the EU does not allow, probably means that the profit gained from such practices far outweighs the effort of complying with EU + any profit gained from EU users themselves.