3 ms·

>and to deliberately misunderstand that a maximum penalty wasn't going to be the always penalty. This is the only way to view penalties like this that don't ha

>and to deliberately misunderstand that a maximum penalty wasn't going to be the always penalty. This is the only way to view penalties like this that don't have clearly defined criteria. It's all up to a judge, and when so much is at risk, a company will assume the worse.

Nursie 8y ago
A very American view! This just sort of proves the point the poster was making. People here don't assume that the worst case is going to happen. Most sorts of these laws so far result in initial action taken to help (or force) the company to comply. Fines are usually only considered for those who repeatedly refuse to come into line. My view of the US is that there are many more aggressive public prosecutors who will swing for maximum penalties, in order to make a name for themselves. But maybe I just watch too much tv.
- hyperman1 8y ago
  I agree, a very American view. Nobody but the national regulatory instance of each country can sue, and they are in general not very happy on legal procedures. In practice, a common Euro-pattern is this: First, a sternly worded private letter is sent to the target company. If that doesn't help, a public statement is made. After that, basic legal procedures for a small amount. The amount gets larger when the abuse is more flagrant and previous messages did not help. When the target company seems to co-operate reasonably well, no legal procedures are even started.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  It isn't about assuming that the worst will always happen, it is just NOT assuming that the worst WON'T happen. How is that a bad thing to do? Pretending that the worst result couldn't happen is just delusional - it is like people who don't wear seat belts or helmets, or don't buy insurance. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean you should ignore the risk, especially when the consequences of the unlikely even are so high. Yes, the maximum penalty is probably pretty unlikely; on the other hand, if you GOT the maximum penalty, it might be a death sentence for your company. When the stakes are that high, you can't just ignore the risk.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    > it is just NOT assuming that the worst WON'T happen. But it won't. You attempt to comply with the rules, show good faith and you won't be in danger. It's not a real risk.
    - cortesoft 8y ago
      You have no way of knowing if it is a real risk or not. The law is the law; all it takes is a shift in power, with a group coming into power that wants to make an example of your company, and suddenly the risk is very real.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        Except we do. One of the EU's laws is that all EU penalties be proportionate [0]. All other laws are subject to that requirement. So the moment some group "wants to make an example of your company", not that I have ever heard of anyone being made an example of that's remotely akin to US punitive damages awards or 999 year Texas jail sentences, you appeal to the national or EU court. The judge will be delighted to rule the regulator's (or government) actions illegal or disproportionate. It may well also trigger a judicial review. For an alternative outcome you would require a change in representation at the EU from 27 nations, and repeal of one of the founding principles. Not as unthinkable as the US repealing the constitution, but not very far off. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#European_Union_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#European...
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    If you are always going to assume that the worst case scenario might happen, you should probably worry about the things that will actually kill you, many of which are far more likely than getting the maximum fine as a small company that is not intentionally violating the law. Something like getting killed in a car crash is much more likely and much higher stakes.

Nursie 8y ago

A very American view! This just sort of proves the point the poster was making. People here don't assume that the worst case is going to happen. Most sorts of these laws so far result in initial action taken to help (or force) the company to comply. Fines are usually only considered for those who repeatedly refuse to come into line. My view of the US is that there are many more aggressive public prosecutors who will swing for maximum penalties, in order to make a name for themselves. But maybe I just watch too much tv.

hyperman1 8y ago
I agree, a very American view. Nobody but the national regulatory instance of each country can sue, and they are in general not very happy on legal procedures. In practice, a common Euro-pattern is this: First, a sternly worded private letter is sent to the target company. If that doesn't help, a public statement is made. After that, basic legal procedures for a small amount. The amount gets larger when the abuse is more flagrant and previous messages did not help. When the target company seems to co-operate reasonably well, no legal procedures are even started.
cortesoft 8y ago
It isn't about assuming that the worst will always happen, it is just NOT assuming that the worst WON'T happen. How is that a bad thing to do? Pretending that the worst result couldn't happen is just delusional - it is like people who don't wear seat belts or helmets, or don't buy insurance. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean you should ignore the risk, especially when the consequences of the unlikely even are so high. Yes, the maximum penalty is probably pretty unlikely; on the other hand, if you GOT the maximum penalty, it might be a death sentence for your company. When the stakes are that high, you can't just ignore the risk.
- Nursie 8y ago
  > it is just NOT assuming that the worst WON'T happen. But it won't. You attempt to comply with the rules, show good faith and you won't be in danger. It's not a real risk.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    You have no way of knowing if it is a real risk or not. The law is the law; all it takes is a shift in power, with a group coming into power that wants to make an example of your company, and suddenly the risk is very real.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Except we do. One of the EU's laws is that all EU penalties be proportionate [0]. All other laws are subject to that requirement. So the moment some group "wants to make an example of your company", not that I have ever heard of anyone being made an example of that's remotely akin to US punitive damages awards or 999 year Texas jail sentences, you appeal to the national or EU court. The judge will be delighted to rule the regulator's (or government) actions illegal or disproportionate. It may well also trigger a judicial review. For an alternative outcome you would require a change in representation at the EU from 27 nations, and repeal of one of the founding principles. Not as unthinkable as the US repealing the constitution, but not very far off. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#European_Union_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#European...
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  If you are always going to assume that the worst case scenario might happen, you should probably worry about the things that will actually kill you, many of which are far more likely than getting the maximum fine as a small company that is not intentionally violating the law. Something like getting killed in a car crash is much more likely and much higher stakes.