4 ms·
And please read the second part of my statement. If the punishments are minuscule, it'll just be a cost of doing business. Or better yet, there may be no fines
by crankylinuxuser 7y ago
And please read the second part of my statement.
If the punishments are minuscule, it'll just be a cost of doing business. Or better yet, there may be no fines at all.
What happened with Yahoo? Equifax? Mariott? Adult Friend Finder? Target? eBay?
Each of those has hundreds of millions of people involved in massive breaches. Do they still exist? Were they fined appropriately for the impact they caused?
(Admittedly Yahoo isn't the best of examples, because they were in a downslide with no good market. But nor were they fined for a breach of every account.)
- throwaway2048 7y agoWhat does that have to do with your original point that Qualcomm wasn't anticompetitive in its behaviour?
- comex 7y agoI’m not sure why you’re bringing up data breaches, which are totally unrelated to antitrust law. Data breaches are also difficult to sue over in the US, as there’s no law specifically requiring companies to implement security measures or imposing penalties for being breached, although some lawsuits based on common law “reasonable care” claims have gone forward [1]. Anyway, in this case, it looks like the FTC did not seek monetary relief (not sure why), but they sought and received an injunction basically ordering Qualcomm to stop doing what they were doing, with compliance and monitoring procedures to enforce it. That’s not as dramatic as a financial penalty would have been, but the stock hit suggests that Qualcomm nevertheless will suffer as a result. [1] https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-rise-of-cyber-negligence-claims-plaintiffs-find-receptive-judges-by-going-back-to-basics/ https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-ris...