4 ms·

Unfortunately this doesn't include what kind of fine WB has to pay, that will come out later. I hope it's stiff. This kind of deception has to cost more than it

by ebbv 10y ago

Unfortunately this doesn't include what kind of fine WB has to pay, that will come out later. I hope it's stiff. This kind of deception has to cost more than it benefits the company if they are going to be deterred from it. Unfortunately at the moment this kind of thing is going on constantly, and even when there are disclosures that it's sponsored "reviews" the disclaimers are usually as subtle as possible. Video games became the biggest entertainment industry in the last 20 years and as a result a lot of greedy people with no moral compass have flooded into it to cash in.

us0r 10y ago
There will be no monetary fine.
mtgx 10y ago
> I hope it's stiff. I doubt it's more than a few million dollars if that. I wonder why the FTC even had to settle for this. Warner was clearly in the wrong. Government agencies are way too quick to settle these days. Sure, a trial would be much harder, but also much more effective in stopping corporate illegal activities in the future. Cheap settlements are just the cost of doing business and I doubt they serve as any deterrent at all.
- jonnathanson 10y ago
  Typically speaking, a federal regulatory body's enforcement calculus follows this procedure: 1. How big is the target company? 2. How scary are its lawyers? 3. Do we expect the company to put up a fight? 4. Is the fight worth it? (e.g., Are there important precedents at stake? Can we make an example of the company in question?) Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the desire to pursue the fight in court fizzles out at Step 4. (And sometimes there's an ancillary Step 4a: "How many other battles are we fighting right now?") I'm not being glib here; I'm just being cynical, but realistic. This is pretty much how my friends at various agencies have described it to me. It doesn't seem too farfetched, if perhaps a bit simplified.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    If only the DEA was so limited in its resources that it had to come to that sort of calculus. We'd have a lot less people who committed victimless crimes in prison.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - vkou 10y ago
      They do, it's just that most of the people put away for drug crimes don't have deep pockets and good legal council.

by ebbv 10y ago

us0r 10y ago

There will be no monetary fine.

mtgx 10y ago

> I hope it's stiff. I doubt it's more than a few million dollars if that. I wonder why the FTC even had to settle for this. Warner was clearly in the wrong. Government agencies are way too quick to settle these days. Sure, a trial would be much harder, but also much more effective in stopping corporate illegal activities in the future. Cheap settlements are just the cost of doing business and I doubt they serve as any deterrent at all.

jonnathanson 10y ago
Typically speaking, a federal regulatory body's enforcement calculus follows this procedure: 1. How big is the target company? 2. How scary are its lawyers? 3. Do we expect the company to put up a fight? 4. Is the fight worth it? (e.g., Are there important precedents at stake? Can we make an example of the company in question?) Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the desire to pursue the fight in court fizzles out at Step 4. (And sometimes there's an ancillary Step 4a: "How many other battles are we fighting right now?") I'm not being glib here; I'm just being cynical, but realistic. This is pretty much how my friends at various agencies have described it to me. It doesn't seem too farfetched, if perhaps a bit simplified.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  If only the DEA was so limited in its resources that it had to come to that sort of calculus. We'd have a lot less people who committed victimless crimes in prison.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 10y ago
    They do, it's just that most of the people put away for drug crimes don't have deep pockets and good legal council.