Are you familiar with legal theorist Gustav Radebruch, who defined a rule ("Radebruch Formula") that essentially came down to the idea that an unbearably unjust law may never be followed?
Yes, which is why I will happily consume LSD and MDMA ins pite of whatever the laws of my country may be.
You're suggesting however that the EU laws are unjust because Google and perhaps others opted to not follow them. Can't say I agree at all.
By that same logic the laws and regulations governing the financial services industry were unjust because banks the world over opted not to follow them, resulting in the financial crash of 2007/2008.
Even just laws aren't followed by individuals or organisations that realise they can make a lot money by not following it, so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make holds any weight.
Sometimes breaking a law and paying the pathetic fine afterwards is just the cost of doing business, which is why I usually argue for genuinely punitive damages and prison time (like in the case of the banks for example).
I am suggesting that the laws are unjust because they cripple a superior service to allow vastly inferior (local) competitors to compete, thus contradicting basic decency.
And all that ex post facto, too. Laws that only applies to one player are by definition unjust.
> I am suggesting that the laws are unjust because they cripple a superior service to allow vastly inferior (local) competitors to compete, thus contradicting basic decency.
And I and the EU both disagree with that notion. Monopolists all use the same defence.
> And all that ex post facto, too. Laws that only applies to one player are by definition unjust.
And these laws apply to every company that might reach the same position so again, I'm not sure what point you are making.
Nothing as long as it obeys the laws of the countries in which it operates.