They are both very high in fructose. What is your point? I genuinly don't get it.

Maybe to some extent? I don't think the superiority of one monosaccharide over the other has been clearly established. There are differences, but the health impact of them are not clear. Also, "glucose vs fructose" is

1. not super-relevant to the matter of comparing juice with soda. At least here in the Nordics, most sodas seem to be sweetened with sugar, a.k.a. sucrose (a.k.a. fructose+glucose, see below), and maybe a splash of juice. (Based on a survey of my favorites, though I mostly drink the Zero-versions)

2. a bit of a false choice (see below).

Fructose often co-occurs with glucose

(Source: Wikipedia article on Fructose)

• Fructose co-exists with glucose, in sucrose ...

Fructose, or fruit sugar, is a common monosaccharide, i.e. a simple sugar. It is classified as a reducing hexose, more specifically a ketonic simple sugar found in many plants, where it is often bonded to glucose to form the disaccharide sucrose.

• ... and in fruit.

Table: "Sugar content of selected common plant foods". Note that many of the fruits' sugar content is dominated by a combination of sucrose and free fructose. Only plum breaks this trend, containing mostly glucose instead (still 47% sucrose and fructose).

• Also: Fructose mostly ends up as glucose

The liver converts most fructose and galactose into glucose for distribution in the bloodstream or deposition into glycogen.

"Potential health effects"

• A lot of the discussion in this part of the article is just about overconsumption of dietary sugars (including glucose and sucrose) in general, which would indicate to me that the differences between them aren't all that significant. However:

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stated in 2011 that fructose may be preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels,[58] while also noting the potential downside that "high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance, and increased visceral adiposity".[58][59] The UK's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2015 disputed the claims of fructose causing metabolic disorders, stating that "there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars."[60]

• "Compared to sucrose"

Fructose was found to increase triglycerides in type-2 but not type-1 diabetes, and moderate use of it has previously been considered acceptable as a sweetener for diabetics,[61] possibly because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells.[62] For a 50 gram reference amount, fructose has a glycemic index of 23, compared with 100 for glucose and 60 for sucrose.[63] Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, allowing diabetics to use less of it per serving.

What is the difference? Both harmful same way, glucose spikes, leads to obesity

Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar. Notice how I didn't add any words to the front? Those words don't change how (un)healthy sugar is. The law clearly isn't about health; as it is portrayed.

Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well. So, might as well use actual sugar if you are paying the tax either way!