This is such a terrible argument. You’re essentially arguing that any business of any kind should never complain or choose not to do business in a jurisdiction if the reason is regulatory burden, no matter how onerous, expensive, ambiguous, and offensive that regulation is.
That’s illogical and not the way that any business evaluates what activities to pursue or forgo.
You’re casting aspersions on this one guy and implying that he must be up to something shady, all because he’s chosen to not serve a market that has decided to pass some horrible regulation that you happen to like. Unbelievable.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The EU can pass whatever laws they want, but the rest of us are still free to tell you to pound sand.
> if the reason is regulatory burden, no matter how onerous,
No, what we're saying is OP can't complain about the burden of this onerous regulation when the fact is that almost none of it is relevant to OP and he'll have to make only minor changes to be compliant.
Several of the claims OP made are flat wrong and it's trivial to show they're wrong by simple web searches.
That’s illogical and not the way that any business evaluates what activities to pursue or forgo.
You’re casting aspersions on this one guy and implying that he must be up to something shady, all because he’s chosen to not serve a market that has decided to pass some horrible regulation that you happen to like. Unbelievable.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The EU can pass whatever laws they want, but the rest of us are still free to tell you to pound sand.