[piva00]

No, fines are for breaking the law, if they don't break the law there's no way for the EU to collect the money. It's like speed traps, people can be mad at them because they broke the law and were caught, it doesn't alleviate the fact they could have just followed the rules.

[snickerbockers]

They have laws like GDPR where they try to assert jurisdiction outside of their borders. Not sure if fines collected through that have been a significant cost of doing business but my point is they definitely can take money from you in situations where you aren't breaking laws that you are nominally under the jurisdiction of.

[pseudalopex]

Conducting business in a jurisdiction subjects you to the laws of that jurisdiction.

[snickerbockers]

Yes but only for the sake of the business conducted in that jurisdiction. The GDPR, according to the EU, applies to anybody anywhere in the world. You can have information on an EU citizen stored outside of the EU and they can fine you under GDPR. You don't even need to have ever been to an EU member state at any point in your life-they still claim to have jurisdiction over you if you have information stored on a computer they want deleted.

Most foreign extradition courts would laugh in their face for trying to use that, but if you have any assets in the EU (as most corporations inevitably will if they get big enough to go international) they can seize those as punishment for not following EU laws related to business conducted outside of the EU and that goes back to what OP tried to argue:

>if they don't break the law there's no way for the EU to collect the money

they actually can, because they can say you broke their law while conducting business outside of their jurisdiction that wasn't even illegal in the coutnry that actually had jurisdiction over that transaction.

[pseudalopex]

Collecting something of value as a condition of service is conducting business. It was decided years ago the a transaction's location is the payer's location. Collecting information with or instead of money does not change this. Moving money or information to another jurisdiction and using it there does not change this.

GDPR covers people in the EU. Not EU citizens. Non EU companies can avoid GDPR liability complying with the law or not conducting business there.

Global companies have assets in the EU because they conduct business in the EU. International companies which do not conduct business in the EU do not have assets in the EU generally. And having assets in a jurisdiction subjects you to the laws of that jurisdiction obviously.

[magicloop]

Sadly this is not the case in relation to EU laws.

In the US system of law, it is based on codified "rules". If you follow the letter of the rules you are fine - no fines.

The system of regulation at play here is the EU digital markets act. These laws are based on the effect of your actions, not the specific actions you undertake.

If the effect of the steps you take produce unacceptable outcomes, you pay fines even if you follow the requirements. The converse applies as well. If you ignore the rules but the outcome is in the spirit of the laws, then no fine.

The idea is to avoid malicious compliance but the cost of this is ambiguity in interpretation and also the market response to your actions might be genuinely surprising.

Here is a technical example to highlight the problem:

Apple were asked that you should allow independent browser technology implementations. They did this (to allow Google's technology to be employed as an example). But due to practical complexity they could not make progressive web apps work on iPhone (since they would need to route through the API which can be provided by Google's browser technology). So to comply with the rules, Apple disabled full screen PWAs and instead allowed them instead the web view area inside a browser, not full screen like a native app is experienced.

The EU regulatory body said revert that, and allow PWAs despite their own rules being then violated (as it would be using only Apple's browser technology) because the effect of allowing PWAs is a competitive marketplace for native app alternatives (web apps).

[piva00]

I prefer a system of rule of law that covers the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

I do not like the idea that law can become a game of finding loopholes that go against the spirit of it, it's whack-a-mole that costs the State a lot to keep patching. I much rather have the system most of the EU has where subjectivity can play into decisions since some loopholes can be clever enough to work around terminology, jargon, and non-specificities to skirt around what's written while being opposed to the intent of the rule.

Companies can still contest, and bring forth cases to be reviewed to check if those solutions comply with the law, their lack of cooperation is a choice to drive a wedge between the citizenry and the regulations by non-complying and crying foul to the public to gather sympathy. That's an active choice, the companies could work with regulatory bodies to cooperate, and find a solution (I work at a company who did that for DSA) but most would much rather give a bad rap to regulations to turn the public against it.

[genericone]

"Why don't you just read my mind and do what I wanted you to do in the first place?"

Rule by law rather than rule of law?

[piva00]

What's a better system that allows patching loopholes of the letter without requiring extensive bureaucracy and potential gridlock in legislature?

There's no mind reading, most of EU's fines only happen after a pattern of non-compliance, complain as much as you want about EU's bureaucracy but it's quite cooperative if you want to figure out a solution. I prefer this system than one where the written laws are worth nothing since well paid corporate lawyers can figure a way out, or hell, they might even be paid to write the laws themselves as it happens in the US.

[davidguetta]

I mean it's never going to be perfect right away tho. Trying to mitigate outcomes is still better than being an law autist.