Actually, this was news was posted earlier today (here) and someone commented the following:
EU fines generally have a bad track record when it comes to stopping companies from trying to get away with stuff, but they do have an excellent track record when it comes to making them stop.
Differently put: You won’t see the EU levy another fine against Apple for this because Apple doesn’t fancy getting slapped with a 40bn fine. If your main armament is big enough all you’ll ever need is shots before the bow.
Can’t say for sure it is true, but if it is it would definitely have a serious effect.
Maybe i should have copy and pasted their follow-up comment as well:
Well, it’s sufficient. Using larger calibres for the opening salvo would increase the risk of companies succeeding in fighting fines before court, and companies generally have some kind of creative interpretation of the law at the ready to justify what they’re doing. Fining companies into bankruptcy or out of competition for a first offence is rather hard to justify, for repeat offenders, though? Companies continuing their behaviour after having received a warning fine have no excuse, now the gloves come off otherwise you’re perceived as a paper tiger.
I think their point is that giving a small fine the first time is enough reason for them to change their behaviour because they know they could get a much higher fine (for example $40 Bn). I don’t know how true this is, didn’t research it, but it sounds plausible.
That’s pretty much it. At first you get slapped on the wrist and if you just treat it as a cost of doing business without any changes you’ll soon find out that it’s not a one time fee, nor that it stays the same. I think with GPDR the maximum (one time) fee was up to 10% of companys turnover (not gross profit). With Apples ~390 billion revenue that would roughly round up to 40 billion per fine.
And even if you have endless supply of money there’s still options to shut the whole business down if it’s deemed illegal. It might be a damn slow process, but if you just stubbornly try to fight it with lawyers and money it just doesn’t work.
The heads are outside the EU’s jurisdiction. But I would like to see the EU showing it has the power to limit a company’s activities on the common market if they do not follow the rules (idk how exactly, I guess hard bans would be very, very difficult to implement in this case).
Drop in the bucket
Actually, this was news was posted earlier today (here) and someone commented the following:
Can’t say for sure it is true, but if it is it would definitely have a serious effect.
I don’t understand. “It doesn’t make them stop, but it makes them stop?” Where are these $40 BN fines?
Maybe i should have copy and pasted their follow-up comment as well:
I think their point is that giving a small fine the first time is enough reason for them to change their behaviour because they know they could get a much higher fine (for example $40 Bn). I don’t know how true this is, didn’t research it, but it sounds plausible.
That’s pretty much it. At first you get slapped on the wrist and if you just treat it as a cost of doing business without any changes you’ll soon find out that it’s not a one time fee, nor that it stays the same. I think with GPDR the maximum (one time) fee was up to 10% of companys turnover (not gross profit). With Apples ~390 billion revenue that would roughly round up to 40 billion per fine.
And even if you have endless supply of money there’s still options to shut the whole business down if it’s deemed illegal. It might be a damn slow process, but if you just stubbornly try to fight it with lawyers and money it just doesn’t work.
And yet we keep seeing the same headlines over and over. Maybe putting one’s head on a pike would be a more effective deterrent - it’s worth a shot.
The heads are outside the EU’s jurisdiction. But I would like to see the EU showing it has the power to limit a company’s activities on the common market if they do not follow the rules (idk how exactly, I guess hard bans would be very, very difficult to implement in this case).
Or maybe just one of those
$4$40 BN finesMeta already has racked up nearly $2bn worth of fines
€1.2bn 2023 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65669839
This one €200m https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-fine-apple-meta-breach-digital-markets-act-dma/
€800m in 2024 https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-competition-fine-6886192353a344126a15886d6ca7c627
And Google got €5bn in 2018
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-fine-apple-meta-breach-digital-markets-act-dma/
Mistyped, meant $40 BN as stated earlier in this comment chain.