Obviously $1mil per infraction is a bit lopsided when the definition of which products are infracting is not clearly spelled out. Likewise, coordinating a revie

Obviously $1mil per infraction is a bit lopsided when the definition of which products are infracting is not clearly spelled out. Likewise, coordinating a review and implementing all measures in a 24h period is obviously not feasible when that hasn't happened over the last month(s). This was phrased as a threat in the article title, but I don't see how Amazon had any choice until implementation of measures is either done or they have an answer to a court appeal. Likewise, there could be a case to be made that measures should already be implemented, but there is no documentation in the article over what progress there has already happened. Per this court order and event, I again don't see another response by them. My understanding per the article is that this is not about applying a uniform set of safety standards, so there is no legal template we as outsiders can use - say, the safety standards implemented by their French competitors - to judge whether this order is or is not "fair". I also don't think it is my place to judge. Instead, Amazon has the right to determine whether or not they provide service within a country under that country's laws, and to raise awareness if _they_ feel the judicial system is giving illegal preferential treatment disguised in the context of crisis response. I don't see that as happening here either, though - at least not yet.