Google has been historically targeted by individuals in high ranking roles at the EU who have gone on record calling it their personal mission to harm US tech firms. There is a limit.
The hypocracy is blatant too, USA regulates every business on it's soil without hesitation, often with asine laws like the Jones act.
When France introduced 3% tax on tech giants, US government lost their shit. They can set 100% tax if they please, if you don't like it, don't trade in France.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48947922
I think US State Department is quite aware that EU is one of the few institutions that is roughly their peer in economy and trade wat capability. They don't want to kick a hornets nest.
The specific findings of the commission and the court here go against any reasonable logic.
The EU seems to love kicking US tech firms while staying silent on anything China does. Ask German businesses who moved manufacturing to China and had their Intellectual property stolen from right in front of their eyes, only to have the EU play pussycat then.
Your comment could certainly use a bit more thought.
The united fruit mentality never really ended.
Both the US and EU have a fairly strong interest in the principle that transnational companies can be regulated by national regulators, _particularly_ antitrust regulators. Undermining this would tend to lead to a situation where these companies couldn't be effectively regulated by _anyone_.
That might look like a personal vendetta against Google, but it's not personal at all. It's much like the way the head of the US FTC has a bone to pick with Amazon, not because she has anything personal with Amazon, but because she's charged with protecting consumers and believes Amazon to be harming them.
Just because they're able to get away with it here due to the corruption in American campaign finance doesn't mean they can get away with it everywhere.
And that limit is antitrust violations.
The main job of American diplomacy is securing profits all over the world for America's most generous lobbyists.
Any half wit judge should be able to bless those judgements if we’re using the standard in the court ruling we’re commenting on.
It’s a almost as though you think the issue here is about some actual abuse as opposed to the logical loops the judgement is diving through to push through those findings.
Time to walk the talk.