[magicloop]

Sadly this is not the case in relation to EU laws.

In the US system of law, it is based on codified "rules". If you follow the letter of the rules you are fine - no fines.

The system of regulation at play here is the EU digital markets act. These laws are based on the effect of your actions, not the specific actions you undertake.

If the effect of the steps you take produce unacceptable outcomes, you pay fines even if you follow the requirements. The converse applies as well. If you ignore the rules but the outcome is in the spirit of the laws, then no fine.

The idea is to avoid malicious compliance but the cost of this is ambiguity in interpretation and also the market response to your actions might be genuinely surprising.

Here is a technical example to highlight the problem:

Apple were asked that you should allow independent browser technology implementations. They did this (to allow Google's technology to be employed as an example). But due to practical complexity they could not make progressive web apps work on iPhone (since they would need to route through the API which can be provided by Google's browser technology). So to comply with the rules, Apple disabled full screen PWAs and instead allowed them instead the web view area inside a browser, not full screen like a native app is experienced.

The EU regulatory body said revert that, and allow PWAs despite their own rules being then violated (as it would be using only Apple's browser technology) because the effect of allowing PWAs is a competitive marketplace for native app alternatives (web apps).

[piva00]

I prefer a system of rule of law that covers the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

I do not like the idea that law can become a game of finding loopholes that go against the spirit of it, it's whack-a-mole that costs the State a lot to keep patching. I much rather have the system most of the EU has where subjectivity can play into decisions since some loopholes can be clever enough to work around terminology, jargon, and non-specificities to skirt around what's written while being opposed to the intent of the rule.

Companies can still contest, and bring forth cases to be reviewed to check if those solutions comply with the law, their lack of cooperation is a choice to drive a wedge between the citizenry and the regulations by non-complying and crying foul to the public to gather sympathy. That's an active choice, the companies could work with regulatory bodies to cooperate, and find a solution (I work at a company who did that for DSA) but most would much rather give a bad rap to regulations to turn the public against it.

[genericone]

"Why don't you just read my mind and do what I wanted you to do in the first place?"

Rule by law rather than rule of law?

[davidguetta]

I mean it's never going to be perfect right away tho. Trying to mitigate outcomes is still better than being an law autist.