If US companies don't want to be fined for breaking the law, perhaps obeying the law would be a better strategy than risking it, getting caught and then having your president throw a tantrum about how it's 'not fair', like a 3 year-old who isn't allowed to a second icecream.
I'll say up front that I'm not defending Apple or the EU (sorry in advance to anyone who wanted me to pick a side).
The difficult thing with many laws is there is room for different interpretations of the laws. As the laws are written, Apple could very well be obeying the law. The issue in that case isn't that Apple is breaking the law, it's that the EU's interpretation of the law is that Apple is breaking the law. There is a difference. Again, this does not mean a law is necessarily being broken, only that the EU's interpretation of the law is different than Apple's.
This leaves possibilities (these are not the only ones but cover most cases).
1. Apple is
clearly breaking the EU's law and the fine is justified
2. Apple is
clearly not breaking the EU's law but the EU claims it is and the fine is not justified
3. Apple
might be breaking the EU's law and Apple's lawyers will try to argue there's enough ambiguity that Apple should not be fined
4. Apple
might not be breaking the EU's law and the EU lawyers will try to argue there's enough ambiguity that Apple should be fined
Who is correct -- the EU or Apple? I don't think we know enough to say either way. Saying the EU is correct (even if the EU is not) might be
reality though. That's because the EU gets to make the laws and interpret the laws by default of what they are -- a government entity with control over the laws, enforcement of laws, and interpretation of laws. That's a stacked deck. This does not make the EU's interpretations the only possible ones (or even correct ones), they just simply have the last say because the courts dealing with these questions are still internal to the EU. While there is always the hope for full independence and separation between lawmakers and courts, there are still biases and experiences that influence everyone. Those disagreeing with the EU's judgments also have biases.
The challenge is that there is almost always ambiguity in laws. This is to allow for some wiggle room for a range of actions and operations, which is often positive and reduced friction, but it is also can cause issues because there is room for multiple interpretations. Some of the ambiguity is simply because people writing laws cannot foresee every possible response or interpretation of the law. Usually what happens is a law is passed and then courts sort it out afterward. This happens all the time and is the major process used to refine the law and figure out what was actually passed. That's what is happening here. Apple is testing the limits of the law because it has serious implications for Apple's
modus operandi.
Here's how the process looks.
EU: Here's the law.
Apple (lawyers and others): It looks like we can do this and still comply.
EU: [Apple is limiting the choices of individuals out of greedy monopolistic and/or anti-competitive actions]. We didn't mean the law to allow for that. You are breaking the law. Here's a fine.
Apple: [Then why not write the law the way you want it and not leave any room for different applications/loopholes?] We will appeal.
If laws were always straightforward without much ambiguity, there would be far fewer lawyers in the world.
So while Apple might be "breaking the law" Apple might also not be. In that case, the EU doesn't like how Apple is following the law and fined Apple for breaking the EU's interpretation of the law. It's also possible Apple is breaking the law. I'm not taking sides (the EU or Apple's), I'm simply highlighting these are complex issues without clear delineations of breaking or following laws. Stating something definitive isn't really possible until everything gets sorted out. Even then, it's not always clear.
