6 ms·

Not sure why you're being down-voted... without a punitive component to the fine, (i.e. if it were only damages) then Google would have absolutely zero incentiv

by mfoy_ 8y ago

Not sure why you're being down-voted... without a punitive component to the fine, (i.e. if it were only damages) then Google would have absolutely zero incentive to even pretend to change their ways. They could just pay a small fine, laugh, and say "See you next year." EDIT: And now I'm getting down-voted too. Would you nay-sayers care to chime in with more than an e-frown?

jessriedel 8y ago
The top-level commentator isn't arguing that fines should be capped at the damages, he's arguing that they should be indexed to the damages (say, proportional to them). If I steal $50, the punishment is larger than $50, but it's determined relative to that magnitude, and in particular does is not just picked to be a fraction of my income. A $100,000 fine would be excessive punishment for stealing $50 dollars, and the top-level commentator is wondering whether a €1.5B fine is excessive in light of the fact that the entire market third-party search is much smaller than that.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  It is indexed, just not to the damages, but to the revenue of the guilty party. Other countries in the EU do this as well, even in personal matters. For instance, a speeding ticket is based off a percentage of your annual income. Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month. That makes no sense. If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing at all to do with how much money you have. And if that caused the billionaire to not care, that's great. If I got $150 every time someone stole $50 from me and that didn't deter them, I'd start researching how to get them to steal more money from me because it's so profitable to me. If they're willing to pay that much more than something costs, at that point you're just selling it to them and deterrence is not desired because the transaction is apparently net positive to both parties. Moreover, it seems that you're suggesting that someone with $0 income and $0 assets then should have a <=$50 fine because it's all they can afford? That's the thing that really wouldn't serve as a deterrent, in a problematic, net negative consequences sort of way.
    - lovetox 8y ago
      You are missing the point. Google does not just steal money which we get back with a fine and thats it. It drives competitors out of the market and that causes damage to the economy and is against the interests of the population where they do business. They should make the Managers personally liable. If you think about it 1.5 Billions is laughable for a company like Google, its only money which they have plenty from. Nothing will change.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Google does not just steal money which we get back with a fine and thats it. > It drives competitors out of the market and that causes damage to the economy and is against the interests of the population where they do business. That's the same thing. The harm can be measured in money and a proportional fine imposed. That is no argument for the fine to be proportional to total revenue rather than having any relationship to the harm itself. > They should make the Managers personally liable. At which point the "manager" is compensated by the company or its liability insurance for whatever retribution the government takes on them as an individual, and it's still the company paying regardless. > If you think about it 1.5 Billions is laughable for a company like Google, its only money which they have plenty from. Nothing will change. I don't know about that. In the US the tech companies used to mostly ignore Washington, until it stopped ignoring them. Now they're some of the biggest spenders on lobbying. That would take a different form in Europe because the laws are different, but if you're not expecting this to lead to some variant of "money buys influence" you're likely in for a surprise. So it will likely change that at least. Which is another reason proportionality is important. If preventing a $1M fine is worth spending $1M on lobbying then preventing a series of multi-billion dollar fines is worth...
      - treis 8y ago
        >If you think about it 1.5 Billions is laughable for a company like Google, its only money which they have plenty from. Nothing will change. Just because they have a lot of money doesn't mean they are okay with losing a bunch. As long as the fine amount, adjusting for the probability of the fine, is higher than benefit Google attains by breaking the law it will act as a deterrence.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    First, the vast majority of the world does not use the day-fine system. But more importantly, it makes no sense to index corporate fines to a firm's revenue because corporations can be split/combined (unlike people). Indexing fines to firm size would lead to market distortions, especially in the case when those fines are a significant fraction of total revenue.
    - chocolatebunny 8y ago
      At this point it might actually make sense for Google to create a separate European entity so they won't get fined so heavily all the time in the EU. I guess they'd have to see how much of a benefit that would be relative to the amount of taxes they would save by being in Ireland (I'm not sure if that's still a thing).
      - raquo 8y ago
        The fine is already based on Google's European (not global) ad revenue as someone else quoted in the comments.
      - londons_explore 8y ago
        Google has already started the process of splitting to a Google EEA. They sent notices recently about a transfer of data custodianship to GSuite customers.
  - Aunche 8y ago
    Google isn't a single person. They're already more likely violate some laws and regulations just because they're so big. You can't double dip by treating every small infraction like it's a huge company-wide problem.
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      Too Big To Be Accountable ??????
      - Aunche 8y ago
        Since when does accountable mean being fined over $1 billion? It is beyond absurd. If Waymo gets a speeding ticket in Europe, should it also be for $1 billion? At least the speed limit is a clearly defined rule. Selectively enforcing an arbitrary definition of "anticompetitive" is not.

by mfoy_ 8y ago

jessriedel 8y ago

The top-level commentator isn't arguing that fines should be capped at the damages, he's arguing that they should be indexed to the damages (say, proportional to them). If I steal $50, the punishment is larger than $50, but it's determined relative to that magnitude, and in particular does is not just picked to be a fraction of my income. A $100,000 fine would be excessive punishment for stealing $50 dollars, and the top-level commentator is wondering whether a €1.5B fine is excessive in light of the fact that the entire market third-party search is much smaller than that.

mfoy_ 8y ago
It is indexed, just not to the damages, but to the revenue of the guilty party. Other countries in the EU do this as well, even in personal matters. For instance, a speeding ticket is based off a percentage of your annual income. Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month. That makes no sense. If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing at all to do with how much money you have. And if that caused the billionaire to not care, that's great. If I got $150 every time someone stole $50 from me and that didn't deter them, I'd start researching how to get them to steal more money from me because it's so profitable to me. If they're willing to pay that much more than something costs, at that point you're just selling it to them and deterrence is not desired because the transaction is apparently net positive to both parties. Moreover, it seems that you're suggesting that someone with $0 income and $0 assets then should have a <=$50 fine because it's all they can afford? That's the thing that really wouldn't serve as a deterrent, in a problematic, net negative consequences sort of way.
  - lovetox 8y ago
    You are missing the point. Google does not just steal money which we get back with a fine and thats it. It drives competitors out of the market and that causes damage to the economy and is against the interests of the population where they do business. They should make the Managers personally liable. If you think about it 1.5 Billions is laughable for a company like Google, its only money which they have plenty from. Nothing will change.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Google does not just steal money which we get back with a fine and thats it. > It drives competitors out of the market and that causes damage to the economy and is against the interests of the population where they do business. That's the same thing. The harm can be measured in money and a proportional fine imposed. That is no argument for the fine to be proportional to total revenue rather than having any relationship to the harm itself. > They should make the Managers personally liable. At which point the "manager" is compensated by the company or its liability insurance for whatever retribution the government takes on them as an individual, and it's still the company paying regardless. > If you think about it 1.5 Billions is laughable for a company like Google, its only money which they have plenty from. Nothing will change. I don't know about that. In the US the tech companies used to mostly ignore Washington, until it stopped ignoring them. Now they're some of the biggest spenders on lobbying. That would take a different form in Europe because the laws are different, but if you're not expecting this to lead to some variant of "money buys influence" you're likely in for a surprise. So it will likely change that at least. Which is another reason proportionality is important. If preventing a $1M fine is worth spending $1M on lobbying then preventing a series of multi-billion dollar fines is worth...
    - treis 8y ago
      >If you think about it 1.5 Billions is laughable for a company like Google, its only money which they have plenty from. Nothing will change. Just because they have a lot of money doesn't mean they are okay with losing a bunch. As long as the fine amount, adjusting for the probability of the fine, is higher than benefit Google attains by breaking the law it will act as a deterrence.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  First, the vast majority of the world does not use the day-fine system. But more importantly, it makes no sense to index corporate fines to a firm's revenue because corporations can be split/combined (unlike people). Indexing fines to firm size would lead to market distortions, especially in the case when those fines are a significant fraction of total revenue.
  - chocolatebunny 8y ago
    At this point it might actually make sense for Google to create a separate European entity so they won't get fined so heavily all the time in the EU. I guess they'd have to see how much of a benefit that would be relative to the amount of taxes they would save by being in Ireland (I'm not sure if that's still a thing).
    - raquo 8y ago
      The fine is already based on Google's European (not global) ad revenue as someone else quoted in the comments.
    - londons_explore 8y ago
      Google has already started the process of splitting to a Google EEA. They sent notices recently about a transfer of data custodianship to GSuite customers.
- Aunche 8y ago
  Google isn't a single person. They're already more likely violate some laws and regulations just because they're so big. You can't double dip by treating every small infraction like it's a huge company-wide problem.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Too Big To Be Accountable ??????
    - Aunche 8y ago
      Since when does accountable mean being fined over $1 billion? It is beyond absurd. If Waymo gets a speeding ticket in Europe, should it also be for $1 billion? At least the speed limit is a clearly defined rule. Selectively enforcing an arbitrary definition of "anticompetitive" is not.