@kingannoy If only it were that simple...most of my clients chose to work toward compliance, but some took this tack. They weren't (and aren't) crazy, and there's nothing wrong with blaming the EU for making this choice. It has consequences - some they'll like (fewer cookies) and some they won't (further neutering the possibility of a European Silicon Valley). This one falls somewhere in between.
I could understand your argument if we were talking about a company has a reason for handling private data, like say, Fit Bit. And if they said something like: "We got caught with our pants down, we'll be back with you as soon as we figured it out".
Instead it's a company with no excuse for gathering anything but your address, low-key insulting our government. They aren't crazy, they are the target of this law and I love their precious little snowflake response.
@kingannoy I think that's a fair distinction, but I'm not sure it necessarily supports that side of the argument. There's something inherently fair about expecting fitbit or google or facebook to handle personal data in a sophisticated, accountable manner. Should we treat a clothing company the same way? That raises one of GDPR's other unintended consequences; the parties it benefits most are the ones it seeks to constrain (by disproportionately affecting less sophisticated competitors).
So I understand that it's in this companies best interest to just not do business in the EU. In dollars-and-cents terms it's better for them if they can keep being as un-responsible with their customers' data as they want. They prefer it if those possible negative externalities don't get connected to them.
Totally reasonable free market response.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!