This is the only way to view penalties like this that don't have clearly defined criteria. It's all up to a judge, and when so much is at risk, a company will assume the worse.
This just sort of proves the point the poster was making. People here don't assume that the worst case is going to happen. Most sorts of these laws so far result in initial action taken to help (or force) the company to comply. Fines are usually only considered for those who repeatedly refuse to come into line.
My view of the US is that there are many more aggressive public prosecutors who will swing for maximum penalties, in order to make a name for themselves.
But maybe I just watch too much tv.
Nobody but the national regulatory instance of each country can sue, and they are in general not very happy on legal procedures.
In practice, a common Euro-pattern is this: First, a sternly worded private letter is sent to the target company. If that doesn't help, a public statement is made. After that, basic legal procedures for a small amount. The amount gets larger when the abuse is more flagrant and previous messages did not help. When the target company seems to co-operate reasonably well, no legal procedures are even started.
How is that a bad thing to do? Pretending that the worst result couldn't happen is just delusional - it is like people who don't wear seat belts or helmets, or don't buy insurance. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean you should ignore the risk, especially when the consequences of the unlikely even are so high.
Yes, the maximum penalty is probably pretty unlikely; on the other hand, if you GOT the maximum penalty, it might be a death sentence for your company. When the stakes are that high, you can't just ignore the risk.
But it won't. You attempt to comply with the rules, show good faith and you won't be in danger.
It's not a real risk.
So the moment some group "wants to make an example of your company", not that I have ever heard of anyone being made an example of that's remotely akin to US punitive damages awards or 999 year Texas jail sentences, you appeal to the national or EU court. The judge will be delighted to rule the regulator's (or government) actions illegal or disproportionate. It may well also trigger a judicial review.
For an alternative outcome you would require a change in representation at the EU from 27 nations, and repeal of one of the founding principles. Not as unthinkable as the US repealing the constitution, but not very far off.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#European...
Existing laws we already operate under have much more severe maximum penalties than people realize, and judges are (relatively) reasonable at applying them correctly. Right here in the US, nearly everyone is technically violating some law every day, the key is ensuring that our justice system has the mechanics in place to deal with clear violators, while having adequate redress for improper application of the law.
The copyright law is much the same. No, memes will not get banned by it. Yes, Google News will have to pay for the content they scrape. No, you will not get hunted down by the copyright gestapo for sending a link to a friend.
I don't think the system is working well at all. We have a situation where vague laws with severe penalties allow prosecutors to grossly overcharge. This is then used to coerce the accused into waiving their rights to a trial, in return for the certainty of a more limited punishment.
In Germany "deals" are very much not liked by the law profession, and only a very limited form of it has been put into law. And even that is very sharply debated in the profession.
Add to it that prosecutors actually do look for mitigating circumstances, and do not regularly appeal a verdict that they feel is a bit too low, thus preventing the appellate court from handing down a harsher sentence, making the appeal risk-free for the defendant.
It's not all roses here, but you also shouldn't assume that this "either plead guilty and accept five years or risk three hundred years" is a universal property of judicial systems.
Guilty pleas do usually result in lower tariffs, but AFAICT we have little to none of the horse-trading that's continually portrayed on US television.
Yet a common US reaction was to view GDPR as something draconian and anti small business, and to deliberately misunderstand that a maximum penalty wasn't going to be the always penalty. Much like this blog post does.
On the copyright proposals those same people here in the EU are unanimously against.