It's a common law perspective really (writing from the UK) - laws are interpreted by judges and that forms a body of past cases which 'fill in the gaps' so to speak, and become the rule for the future. In contrast to civil law in much of Europe which attempts to codify everything, leaving nothing to interpretation. (I'm no expert - I don't know what happens when they come across a gap, the proceedings are suspended until legislators full it in I suppose?)

A US-centric perspective, stereotypically, would be like 'my Starbucks coffee is too cold, I am suing'. You can have common law without sue-happy individuals.

> That's a very U.S. centric perspective. It's somewhat less common in the EU than in the U.S. to involve courts so readily.

For people, yes. For businesses, absolutely not.

Apple is a very U.S. centric company so it makes sense they’re going to do things this way.

Eh. I think "break the rules and see what happens" has been a _very_ common means of GDPR 'compliance' in Europe, in general. Worked, too, at least for a while; the first fines >100million only showed up in 2022 or so.