[pembrook]

The laws are specifically designed to target US firms without affecting EU ones and enforcement of fines and the size of them is highly selective -- the most attractive targets with the highest willingness to pay without getting to the point where they would pull out of the market.

If you do not see the moral hazard in this, I don't know what else I can tell you. If the EU had a seriously competitive tech industry, many of these laws would have never been created, as the EU is not some moral believer in privacy (they fight against encryption domestically), they are just run-of-the-mill protectionists like all governments.

[jonathanstrange]

This is nonsense, I'm about to launch a company in the EU and these laws are a major consideration and potential pain point for us, too. They are very relevant for EU companies.

This makes me wonder if US companies complaining about the GDPR and DMA have any idea how many more laws EU companies have to comply with in addition to this. It's not easy.

[detaro]

If you claim GDPR is "not affecting" EU companies your position has nothing to do with reality.

[0xy]

There hasn't been a single DMA fine against an EU company, ever. Nor have any been investigated.

The DMA is a tax on the United States. Look no further than its enforcement and its text (highly targeted).

[cwillu]

Could it be because EU companies based on doing shitty and illegal things just never get started in the first place?

[marceldegraaf]

DMA is not the same as GDPR.

[0xy]

The thread is specifically about DMA. My parent comment mentions DMA specifically. This 'EU enforces the law equally' position is nonsense, considering Spotify, an EU company, was carved out from the DMA.

Sounds legit!