7 ms·

130.000€ fine for a bank with 320M€ of revenue in 2015 (see [0]) doesn't seem too much... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniCredit_Bank_Romania https://en.w

by kuu 7y ago

130.000€ fine for a bank with 320M€ of revenue in 2015 (see [0]) doesn't seem too much... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniCredit_Bank_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniCredit_Bank_Romania

juandazapata 7y ago
It's a start. You've got to start somewhere.
- lelima 7y ago
  But if you start that low is gonna be hard to fine later on for more. e.g. Why I have to pay 10kk when Unicredit Bank pay only 130k?
  - simplyinfinity 7y ago
    Because the fines are not arbitrary, but progressively larger after each offense :)
    - NullPrefix 7y ago
      That puts an incetive to crime an industry early, before the first small fines.
      - riffraff 7y ago
        it's not a global counter, it's a per-infringer counter.
        NullPrefix 7y ago
        >Why I have to pay 10kk when Unicredit Bank pay only 130k? Grandparent comment implies otherwise.
  - olliej 7y ago
    The general advice leading up/immediately after was that the fines would start relatively small, and then progressively grow to 10% of global revenue if they kept violating the law
McDev 7y ago
As long as it's enough for them to fix whatever they were doing wrong, I'd say the fine doesn't necessarily have to be punitive
Bjartr 7y ago
My understanding is that the first fine is a shot across the bow. Now that they've been found in violation, any future violation will hold a harsher penalty.
- riffraff 7y ago
  also: the collaboration of the party is accounted for when applying the fine. The regulation attempts to get parties to behave well, not just to punish them.
gourou 7y ago
Google's fine was 50M€ https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-fi...
- riffraff 7y ago
  Notice there are some differences though: * google was found in violation of 7 different articles * it was considered to not have done anything to stop the problem and had reiterated the offense * the issue affected a significantly larger amount of users (e.g. all android users in france)
jdietrich 7y ago
The fundamental role of the regulator is to ensure compliance with the regulations. Regulators must consider a number of factors before deciding whether to issue a fine and the size of that fine. The regulations provide for a very high maximum fine, but that would only be appropriate where the regulations have been intentionally, grievously and repeatedly breached. In the case of an unintentional breach with relatively minor consequences that is swiftly addressed by the controller, a small fine (or no fine at all) would be entirely appropriate. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/
anonymousab 7y ago
It's easier to fine them 1.3 million for the next offense after this fine for the first. And so on.

by kuu 7y ago

juandazapata 7y ago

It's a start. You've got to start somewhere.

lelima 7y ago
But if you start that low is gonna be hard to fine later on for more. e.g. Why I have to pay 10kk when Unicredit Bank pay only 130k?
- simplyinfinity 7y ago
  Because the fines are not arbitrary, but progressively larger after each offense :)
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    That puts an incetive to crime an industry early, before the first small fines.
    - riffraff 7y ago
      it's not a global counter, it's a per-infringer counter.
      - NullPrefix 7y ago
        >Why I have to pay 10kk when Unicredit Bank pay only 130k? Grandparent comment implies otherwise.
- olliej 7y ago
  The general advice leading up/immediately after was that the fines would start relatively small, and then progressively grow to 10% of global revenue if they kept violating the law

McDev 7y ago

As long as it's enough for them to fix whatever they were doing wrong, I'd say the fine doesn't necessarily have to be punitive

Bjartr 7y ago

My understanding is that the first fine is a shot across the bow. Now that they've been found in violation, any future violation will hold a harsher penalty.

riffraff 7y ago
also: the collaboration of the party is accounted for when applying the fine. The regulation attempts to get parties to behave well, not just to punish them.

gourou 7y ago

Google's fine was 50M€ https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-fi...

riffraff 7y ago
Notice there are some differences though: * google was found in violation of 7 different articles * it was considered to not have done anything to stop the problem and had reiterated the offense * the issue affected a significantly larger amount of users (e.g. all android users in france)

jdietrich 7y ago

The fundamental role of the regulator is to ensure compliance with the regulations. Regulators must consider a number of factors before deciding whether to issue a fine and the size of that fine. The regulations provide for a very high maximum fine, but that would only be appropriate where the regulations have been intentionally, grievously and repeatedly breached. In the case of an unintentional breach with relatively minor consequences that is swiftly addressed by the controller, a small fine (or no fine at all) would be entirely appropriate. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/

anonymousab 7y ago

It's easier to fine them 1.3 million for the next offense after this fine for the first. And so on.