laws are interpreted literally in Europe too, or they wouldn't be laws. But most laws have a range of penalties, and often account for intent and attitude. E.g. in US law you have "manslaughter" (voluntary or not) and "murder", for example. And you have different penalties for first offense and repeated offence.

I am not one to say "trust the EU government, it is good". But the intent of the legislator is obviously not to kill businesses willy nilly, it is to punish certain behaviours, they have no reason to willingly cause a business to shut down, which is why the GDPR explicitly accounts for collaboration.

In the end, it is up to you to decide not to abide to the law. There have been local regulations forever, this won't change much.

This does not resonate with my experience. In the US, reporters will often describe sentences as "up to 1024 years", but the actual sentences are different. See https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

Note that, in parallel to the EU regulation, the statutory maximums can be enacted(ever since Booker judges can use their discretion again), but in reality most judges rule within the sentencing guidelines.