There is no such nonsense in civil law that the entire world except the US and the UK use.
Civil law is precise. What needs to be done and what are the consequences are explicitly written. Courts just enforce the law. They cannot 'interpret' the law, stretch or shrink it, they definitely cannot CHOOSE to do anything. The law is the law. If you demonstrate that you fulfilled the criteria for a regulation, that's it - nobody can do anything by 'interpreting' things just like how it flies in common law.
> would NEVER DARE challenge Chinese companies
Chinese companies stick to regulations to the letter. They know what civil law is since China also has civil law. They know that civil law cannot be avoided or worked around how common law can. Like how corporations constantly do in the US.
What's pathetic is a lot of Angloamericans living under a legal system that is remnant of the medieval times, descending from the hodgepodge of 'decrees, traditions and precedents' that people used back at that time, where the judge literally plays the role of the feudal sovereign and 'interprets' things however he wants, leading to entire legal system ending up a quagmire of interpretations, precedents, lawyerly lying and sly loopholes. And when an US corporation cannot do the same thing anywhere else in the world, people like you come up ranting about those who actually do law right.
No wonder the legal system is a mess in the US. A quagmire that requires deep pockets to get any justice out of it. Making everything expensive. Leading to your best brains to be pushed into law sector, draining them from critical fields like STEM.
They justify the verdict on abusive monopolies through a maze of findings that involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors that Google has zero control over and which may have been caused by a billion other factors.
Must be fun defending a judgement you haven't read with the exact reason the comment you responded to is pissed at highlighted so nicely in your third paragraph.
> involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors etc etc...
Those details don't change anything like they could in common law. If the law encompasses ALL of those details and outlines what should be done. And that is what is done. If those were not covered by the RELEVANT law, the result would not be this one. Note that - there still would be a result. Because if they werent covered by that particular law, there would be another, larger-scope law that covers those.
Again, this is a matter of Angloamericans being used to their feudal legal system in which one can sly his or her way out of things by nitpicking and arguing on details. You people are so used to that mentality that you cant break that framework. Leading to arguments like yours.
If you talk like one, walk like one, act like one, for the purpose of a discussion, you are one.
And save your faux outrage. Angloamerican is a term widely used in political science and history.
There is no way you can even begin to compare China to the US on the great scale of evil.
Also, AFAIK EU wasn't really involved in energy security until the crisis this year, so I'd hardly say they "walked the continent" into it.
In which way? Have EU forced Germany to rely on Russia or blocked Polish gas terminal or ordered Germany to shutdown green nuclear energy?
At most you can complain about trying to eliminate coal (as far as I know).
Look at the case of Alstom and many others.
If you can't guarantee data security on your datacenters, that seems more like a US problem than an EU problem.
Remember those decisions are coming from the 46th country in terms of life expectancy.
It's not EU's fault that US requires its companies to siphon all the users data to three letter agencies without any real oversight. EU is simply protecting its citizens. The exact same rules restrict transferring data to other such countries, like China.
Margrethe Vestager and others like her enable a massive espionage operation on Europeans with the help of the US and other governments when it suits them: https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-unsolved-...
The very same thing that the CJEU is blocking cross Atlantic data transfers based on their most recent ruling ie, the imability of foreign entities to challenge FISA courts, is explicitly carved out as an exception for European Governments in the GDPR.
Instead of looking for a reason to excuse this now, please have the decency to admit the double standard.