Is it? Before tax I usually pay less for products in Europe than in USA, at least for all those related to electronics

Can you give an example? I have sent devices from the US to friends in Europe because of the price difference.

All macbooks

EG: the 14 base model is $1999 before tax in apple.com and e1832 before tax in my euw state

Touché. I'm not sure how much the difference in pricing is a direct consequence of consumer protection laws or just import fees, etc.

For the record, an iPhone 13 Pro costs EUR 951 before taxes in France, which means it's 7% more expensive than the US. However with taxes it's USD 1,303, which is probably quite a bit more than any after-tax price in the US.

Sure, but (at least as a country) you are also paying for the disposal of those products so its better to incentivize companies to make things more durable. Plus the cost isn't 2x and often not that much different once you take into account that the EU list price already includes taxes.

The protection goes both ways though. Court ordered compensations are based on actual damages. No one here dreams of getting millions for burning their mouth on hot McD coffee.

> No one here dreams of getting millions for burning their mouth on hot McD coffee

You do know that this is not how that story went, right? The popular version of the story you mention is just wrong.

Settled for undisclosed amount after the last court round was at $640 000 (which both sides appealed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

The point being, in EU you'd be expected to know hot coffee is hot, and get nothing for pouring it over yourself. At best you'd be looking at medical expenses (loss of income is covered by state).

What more is there to the story?

My understanding is the jury decided that the primary issues was that the warning was not large enough on the cup, and that's why they awarded damages.

I can't really understand being served a cup of hot coffee and complaining that you were not warned that it was hot. Coffee is a hot drink. There’s a natural limit at how hot it can be at 100 degrees, so I don’t really understand ‘too hot.’ What did you expect? You must have known it would be between 0 and 100 degrees and acted accordingly.

Subsequent lawsuits have re-inforced that the coffee was served at a reasonable temperature, and the temperature is the same as served at Starbucks, and recommended by independent coffee groups. My understanding is that McDonald's serve at the same temperature today.

I think the idea that the coffee was 'too hot' is a bit weird and a bit of a myth.

Didn’t I already respond to those points?

As I say the temperature they served coffee at hasn’t changed and has actually been tested to be ok in subsequent lawsuits in multiple countries. It’s the same temperature as served by other companies.

McDonalds weren’t required to change the temperature as the outcome but they did increase the size of the warning.

And at the end of the day how can any temperature of coffee be too hot? It’s a hot drink. It’s never going to be more than 100. Assume it could be that hot. Other hot drinks like tea have to be made with boiling water so are always served that hot.

I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to this story that McDonald's must be at fault, but when you look into the details that's not really the case. She even admitted she was at fault and she just wanted someone to pay her medical bills.