3 ms·
If that was true, then they could have left off the "or else, pay $21k/day for noncompliance". I've seen plenty of big-companies use forced compliance to kill s
by kefka 10y ago
If that was true, then they could have left off the "or else, pay $21k/day for noncompliance". I've seen plenty of big-companies use forced compliance to kill smaller and more agile upstarts.
I remember the tactics used to kill most butcheries and local meat shops. Same games, with onerous and idiotic requirements of "compliance" that the big guys can do. Of course, the big companies got legislation to enforce their standing.
This is not opening a dialogue, this is a shakedown to kill a product.
- smallnamespace 10y agoThe $21k is standard regulatory boilerplate and simply notes the maximum statutory rate.[1] If the NHTSA really wanted his company dead, they'd have already gone to a judge to get an injunction to shut him down. Yes, regulatory capture exists, and incumbents often benefit from it. But I'm having trouble seeing how this particular case is a 'shake down' -- the NHTSA is simply asking him to follow the law, which he should be doing anyway. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/01/2016-04311/civil-penalty-factors https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/01/2016-04...
- jahewson 10y agoWhen he kills a bunch of people in China, you're going to feel silly about having made this comment.
- inimino 10y agoGuy can't navigate the regulatory environment in the US, goes to China ... this is the setup for a joke.