Also, what is wrong with a company which improves lives to also improve it's bottom line? I prefer that to an openly hostile company who destroys life that improves it's bottom line.
Nothing as long as it obeys the laws of the countries in which it operates.
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).
And all that ex post facto, too. Laws that only applies to one player are by definition unjust.
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.
"That's a nice company improving lives everywhere on the world you have there. It would be so regrettable if something ... happened to it."