zlacker

Proportionate is in the eye of the beholder. As I stated in another response, an example might be that a low-level offense receives a fine of only 10% of the maximum - just $2 million. And apparently I don't need to worry, because I can just spend six figures hiring an attorney in a country I've never been to, who possibly speaks a language I don't, who will fight the case for me if the fine is out of line.

Sounds very workable.

>>downan+(OP)
> who possibly speaks a language I don't

I'm assuming you speak English. Do you really think there's any lawyer in the EU, competent to litigate EU law, who doesn't speak near-fluent English?

(Actually, if the lawyer is from continental Europe, and you only speak English, they do speak at least one language you don't, but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.)

>>downan+(OP)
The mandate of the regulator is to create compliance. Of course any institution can randomly decide to act outside of their mandate. If they would start to do so, the courts would rule them in. Same as anything. Doing business in the US, with it's notion of punitive damages that are completely unconstrained by law is a much larger risk.

On that token, have you actually at all looked into how "proportionate" is interpreted legally? After all this isn't new and there are a vast number of regulations using the same legal language. Yet somehow business in Europe has not stopped. So prima facie your concerns are absurd, you have not brought evidence that there is an issue (or anything at all unprecedented really) and I have to wonder what motivates you.

As others have said, if you have no interest in complying with laws that protect my privacy, then it's appropriate for you to not do business here.