You can't just abide by these laws because it's so unclear what they mean and say. Notice how the findings are always that a firm didn't do "enough". What is enough? Where in law does it say what enough is?
The EU can chase American firms out of the EU. All it means is people will use the American websites without them having any corporate HQs in Europe, or simply be locked out entirely. The local competitors will probably suck - judging from the past attempts to compete.
If I were a VC, I'd tell my companies that didn't need EU customers yet not to sell to them until they are large enough to make sure they won't fall afoul of rules. Regulations almost always benefit the larger companies, even if they are well-intended. Smaller, more nimble companies almost always thrive in more open environments. Citizens of more open and less restriction/regulation encumbered environments often get a larger variety of businesses to use (sometimes to a fault, like tracking).
When ready, they will be able to enter the EU market quite easily, but at least with capital and size they can do the work necessary to feel comfortable in their compliance. Until then, EU citizens don't get access to the company. This is what I mean about regulations favoring the larger companies. It's almost always the case.
It's not that hypothetical as I've been in this with young companies where we were deciding where to launch first (for beta or actual launches). Granted there was nothing then precluding EU users in those times, in fact we preferred it to help w/ i18n vetting. Nowadays, I'd just as soon leave EU countries off of the select box on my signup form, and not worry about GPDR compliance (again, even though I am probably compliant and believe in the spirit of the rules).
And as of the earlier arguments like “no loss” or “competition would step up” - look how few EU tech companies there are. There’s a reason for that.
The armchair commenters here aren’t EU business people, and it shows. Around here, GPDR is considered a disaster, in the usual style of EU’s heavy-handed, poorly thought-out regulations. It adds so much bureaucracy and expenses - even for companies that do nothing shady - that it is absurd.
The only domestic only companies I can think of aren't competitive in an international market, hence being domestic only.
It can be if there is too much risk or uncertainity. It can be even easier if there is anti-business characteristics to the policies.
I would say EU classify as such.
You’re probably as annoyed by those ever-present cookie banners everywhere. That’s a direct result of another poorly thought-out EU regulation with good privacy intentions behind it. EU is not an indisputable force for good as you seem to think.
How so? What about China and India?
The fact that no company ever did such a thing should be a clue as to the wisdom of a strategy based on one’s fragile nationalistic ego.
I really couldn't care less if there's some demand for my product/service in some market if it doesn't make business sense for me to sell there.
[1] For a random list. http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/international-retail-exits/
If we continue down that path, will there be the equivalent of free tree agreements to limit the fragmentation?