> 2. The case argued was that the tax deal was illegal when it was agreed upon and therefore void. Sweetheart deals / government aid is generally illegal in the

> 2. The case argued was that the tax deal was illegal when it was agreed upon and therefore void. Sweetheart deals / government aid is generally illegal in the EU, and neither Google nor Ireland should have been surprised. You are right about Sweetheart deals. But the dispute is whether the "deal" is sweetheart deal or not. Ireland DoF, Apple (not Google) and US Treasury argues that Apple was following the same laws as everyone else. But EC says otherwise. Note that EC have repeatdley shown their discontent regarding Ireland's, otherwise EUAA consistent, tax laws. One might argue that its an attempt to harmonize tax laws across EU despite it not being a requirement under EUAA. > 3. Do you have any examples of the ECJ changing interpretation on a whim? I do see that Google lacks legal certainty, but when you're as unique as Google is, lack of precedent comes with the territory. That said, Google is walking up to the red line of its own volition. There's a limit to how surprised they can credibly act when they find they have overstepped it. Its not ECJ its EC. EC has acted retroactively (Apple case). EC has acted without precedent and warning (Google case).