It doesn't work like that. Because of their market dominance, there really are no alternatives. This is a combination of companies simply giving up on competing with Google, but also in terms of SEO, Google is the only one that matters for publishers and advertisers drive profits towards Google as well. Mobile? They now own it.
And btw, if you'll mention DuckDuckGo or Bing, the there's a high probability you're not living in the EU, since those are really, really bad at local or non-English searches.
Then don't use any. You are not entitled to it, nobody has any obligation to have a service that does what you want.
Google isn't entitled to doing business in the EU either. If they do, then they need to follow the law.
Pure pragmatism.
Point is, representative democracy doesn't mean the action of the representative is the one the population agrees with.
I don't have the freedom to use another search engine with the scale and access to user data that Google has because the barriers to entry in this market are staggeringly high.
Staggeringly high barrier to entry == utility
>stealing money
Google has the freedom to not pay the fine and shut down operations in the EU.
I take it as a way of saying "this will probably be a controversial opinion here, but..." which is totally fine.
Damn, I hate this trend of making you comments appear more controversial.
> What's next?
You really should not argue this point. We need to stop "big" companies doing "anti-consumer" practices. The reason why those terms are in quotation marks is because when you are discussing antitrust and monopoly laws those terms are not well defined. You should only look at these rulings per-case basis.
If on the other hand you believe in the benefits of the "free for all market", you just have to be aware that this is not an opinion shared by EU citizens.