Moreover, it's ignoring the context of the thread. The relevance is obviously that coercing someone to do something against their will and then saying they're still in charge because they're the ones doing it is a sham.
US federal laws are also a thing. In both cases, they're supposed to be limited to specific categories.
In the EU this appears to be classified into "exclusive", "shared" and "support" "competencies":
> the EU has competence to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States (article 6 TFEU) – in these areas, the EU may not adopt legally binding acts that require the Member States to harmonise their laws and regulations.
So for example, one of the areas in that category is industry.
The common trick to look out for in cases like that is that when they want to regulate something like "industry" they instead categorize the rules as something else, e.g. the US infamously regulates non-interstate non-commerce as "interstate commerce".