5 ms·

I don't understand what's so hard on doing fines based on % revenue or something similar, that would solve such issues.

by enlyth 4y ago

boomboomsubban 4y ago
The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based, that's why they used Google to scare others.
- 37 4y ago
  >The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based What? Says who? It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. FTA: The ACCC and Google jointly submitted to the Court that a penalty of $60 million against Google LLC was appropriate, and that no separate penalty against Google Australia Pty Ltd was necessary, in circumstances where the Australian company was not responsible for the preparation of the screens which the Court found were misleading.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    >It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based.
    - 37 4y ago
      >Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based. It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making. By the same logic, both groups are fully aware that Google starts with the letter G, therefore the size of the fine is based on the fact that Google starts with the letter G. I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        >It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making. Google's revenue is public knowledge, surely the ACCC is capable of using a search engine to find it. >but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true. I can't prove it, or perhaps I could if the ACCC has fined others for the same offense, but even without proof I'm not making an extraordinary claim. If a local delivery place had two separate toggles needed to stop them from tracking your order history, they'd be guilty of the same thing yet people would find a $60M fine ridiculous.
mkl95 4y ago
IIRC the EU does that, but there is a limit that isn't sky high. So it's more likely to deter smaller FAANG competitors than actual FAANG companies.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  The maximum GDPR fine is the higher of €20 million or 4% of global turnover, which is pretty substantial. In Google's case the maximum fine based on 2021 revenue would be ~€10 billion, about 13% of their profits in that year. It's not completely crippling but it's a significant hit, especially considering that they can get fined again and again for additional violations. The fines are a much bigger deal for companies with lower profit margins - Amazon had ~€470 billion in revenue in 2021, and only ~€8 billion in profits. The maximum fine Amazon could receive is ~€18.8 billion - more than two years of profits. A single severe violation potentially putting them in the red for 2 years is a pretty strong penalty. [Thank you Euro-Dollar parity for making these computations effortless]

I don't understand what's so hard on doing fines based on % revenue or something similar, that would solve such issues.

by enlyth 4y ago

I don't understand what's so hard on doing fines based on % revenue or something similar, that would solve such issues.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based, that's why they used Google to scare others.

37 4y ago
>The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based What? Says who? It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. FTA: The ACCC and Google jointly submitted to the Court that a penalty of $60 million against Google LLC was appropriate, and that no separate penalty against Google Australia Pty Ltd was necessary, in circumstances where the Australian company was not responsible for the preparation of the screens which the Court found were misleading.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based.
  - 37 4y ago
    >Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based. It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making. By the same logic, both groups are fully aware that Google starts with the letter G, therefore the size of the fine is based on the fact that Google starts with the letter G. I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making. Google's revenue is public knowledge, surely the ACCC is capable of using a search engine to find it. >but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true. I can't prove it, or perhaps I could if the ACCC has fined others for the same offense, but even without proof I'm not making an extraordinary claim. If a local delivery place had two separate toggles needed to stop them from tracking your order history, they'd be guilty of the same thing yet people would find a $60M fine ridiculous.

mkl95 4y ago

IIRC the EU does that, but there is a limit that isn't sky high. So it's more likely to deter smaller FAANG competitors than actual FAANG companies.

DoughnutHole 4y ago
The maximum GDPR fine is the higher of €20 million or 4% of global turnover, which is pretty substantial. In Google's case the maximum fine based on 2021 revenue would be ~€10 billion, about 13% of their profits in that year. It's not completely crippling but it's a significant hit, especially considering that they can get fined again and again for additional violations. The fines are a much bigger deal for companies with lower profit margins - Amazon had ~€470 billion in revenue in 2021, and only ~€8 billion in profits. The maximum fine Amazon could receive is ~€18.8 billion - more than two years of profits. A single severe violation potentially putting them in the red for 2 years is a pretty strong penalty. [Thank you Euro-Dollar parity for making these computations effortless]