Pardon my ignorance, I didn't read the ruling or look into it deeply. Why would the tool, used by other apps, require consent itself? Why not punish the apps us

Pardon my ignorance, I didn't read the ruling or look into it deeply. Why would the tool, used by other apps, require consent itself? Why not punish the apps using the tool without the required user consent? So if I have a tool that helps with analytics, I can't sell in Europe? Because I can't prove that my customers used it properly? I wonder where the line is. My helper Android library that obtains an IP? What determines proof of consent by your downstream customers? I'd say there is loss when a company that is legitimately using data, with user's consent, has to in-house all the work because the middleman software industry was chilled (not saying that is the case here). Can't the same effect be gained by enforcing the laws on the ones breaking them against their direct users? Some may cheer this specific ruling because they don't like that company, and again this is a knee-jerk comment before I've studied, but shouldn't we in general be cautious of this type of upstream liability? I didn't give Android explicit informed consent to send this data, can Samsung be liable? Obviously a stretched analogy, but it's important to review general b2b implications of such approaches. I know, I know, don't break the law (however defined) and you don't have anything to worry about is the micro-level view. At a macro level, stifling kinds of business and funding you never intended to does happen.