I guess you don't understand how laws are working in the complex modern society. Laws are defined in human languages which has a inherent incompleteness and amb

I guess you don't understand how laws are working in the complex modern society. Laws are defined in human languages which has a inherent incompleteness and ambiguity, is vulnerable to drafting errors and bound to a certain amount of complexity budget. Also our society is a fast moving target and regulation is always a follower here, lawmakers are giving discretion to the administration and judiciary for how to interpret the law to give them some speed to follow up without going through all the painstaking legislation process. But even if we're bound to this practicality, it's always about the spirit of the law. We have a principle called "statutory interpretation" which is dedicated to this problem, and administrations/judiciaries are often required to follow the law's original intent. Otherwise, administration and/or judicial branch can perform ad-hoc interpretation of legislation in favor of themselves and this defeats the whole purpose of trias politica. Apple is not immune to this principle and EU is bound to enforce the original intent of the law. This is also why the supreme courts are one of the most important political entity in virtually every modern countries since they have the final and unobjectionable authority on interpretation of laws by setting judicial precedents. Unless you're going to challenge the whole field of Jurisprudence, it might be better try to understand why they're asking this to Apple and Apple takes it seriously.