5 ms·

> The EU decision will not have direct consequences for users, unfortunately, as it can be appealed to. Such an appeal would lead to a lengthy judicial process.

> The EU decision will not have direct consequences for users, unfortunately, as it can be appealed to. Such an appeal would lead to a lengthy judicial process. So companies can flout the law for years, making massive profits, and continue to do so for as long as they can string along an appeal process? Seems like a pretty nice loophole.

ls15 4y ago
Certain companies can
- p0pcult 4y ago
  Would it wreck the legal framework to institute a concept wherein you can appeal, but if, on appeal, the lower court ruling holds, the punishment/fine is retroactive to the date of the lower court ruling? I.e., make it so that there is no free pass to continuing presumptively illegal activity.
  - izzydata 4y ago
    Wouldn't it be that way already? The punishment even for the whole extended period of time is still often nothing to big tech. Punishments need to be tailored to those being punished to cause equal effect.
    - p0pcult 4y ago
      I don't know. That's why i was asking.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      Under GDPR, fines can be up to 2% of annual revenue (not profit) for "less severe" infringements. Facebook had $118 billion revenue in 2021, so that would be $2.36 billion. And I think the fines will repeat. For more severe infringements, it's double that, so $4.72 billion. Which would be around half of profits for 2021.
- theptip 4y ago
  You’ll be happy to know this is trending in the opposite direction though; GDPR max fine is 4% of global REVENUE (not profit), DMA is 20% IIRC. It takes time but the regulators are evolving teeth.
seanw444 4y ago
[flagged]
- nobody9999 4y ago
  kinda like what radical reactionary (R) state legislatures have been doing with abortion restrictions since 1973 until the Dobbs decision, right? Funny that. Not.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Please point to unconstitutional laws that were passed and sustained in spite of these.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      - Izkata 4y ago
        > What types of Arms? Does a tank fit in an Arm? What about a kamikaze drone? This was written in an era of mercenary warships (see: "privateer"), so yeah, as written it includes all of that.
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        Privateers generally had a letter of marque from an actual government, otherwise they were just pirates. If gun owners need to get a letter of marque from their state government to own arms, I think the gun control people would be on board...
  - dang 4y ago
    "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
morgannewman 4y ago
mpweiher 4y ago
That's not a "loophole", that's called living in a country of laws with due process.
- Panini_Jones 4y ago
  > that's called living in a country of laws with due process. The loophole is that the company is allowed to continue breaking the law while the appeal is in progress.
  - xvector 4y ago
    That's not a loophole, otherwise oppressive laws could be passed that curtail your ability to appeal.
  - cronix 4y ago
    Not doing so would allow mere allegations to put your business on hold until the entire court process, all the way to the highest court, if applicable, is complete. It's not a loophole. It's a fundamental tenant of innocent until proven guilty.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
      This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.
      - indymike 4y ago
        >This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.
        IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
ROARosen 4y ago
Is there no concept of a preliminary injunction in the EU legal system?
rapht 4y ago
> So companies can flout the law for years, making massive profits, and continue to do so for as long as they can string along an appeal process? Seems like a pretty nice loophole. Actually, they may yet receive a hefty fine. The court ruled on the principle: now, each lower jurisdictions may take action based on that principle.
IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
They do risk mounting fines by continuing the practice.
pessimizer 4y ago
It seems fair, as long as the fines and penalties for continuing noncompliance are backdated to when the initial decision was made, even if they're only due after the last appeal fails. With that setup, if they're confident that they'll come out on top, they can keep tracking while appealing. If they're less confident, they'll pause tracking to prevent the buildup of fines.

ls15 4y ago

Certain companies can

p0pcult 4y ago
Would it wreck the legal framework to institute a concept wherein you can appeal, but if, on appeal, the lower court ruling holds, the punishment/fine is retroactive to the date of the lower court ruling? I.e., make it so that there is no free pass to continuing presumptively illegal activity.
- izzydata 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be that way already? The punishment even for the whole extended period of time is still often nothing to big tech. Punishments need to be tailored to those being punished to cause equal effect.
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    I don't know. That's why i was asking.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Under GDPR, fines can be up to 2% of annual revenue (not profit) for "less severe" infringements. Facebook had $118 billion revenue in 2021, so that would be $2.36 billion. And I think the fines will repeat. For more severe infringements, it's double that, so $4.72 billion. Which would be around half of profits for 2021.
theptip 4y ago
You’ll be happy to know this is trending in the opposite direction though; GDPR max fine is 4% of global REVENUE (not profit), DMA is 20% IIRC. It takes time but the regulators are evolving teeth.

seanw444 4y ago

[flagged]

nobody9999 4y ago
kinda like what radical reactionary (R) state legislatures have been doing with abortion restrictions since 1973 until the Dobbs decision, right? Funny that. Not.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Please point to unconstitutional laws that were passed and sustained in spite of these.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    - Izkata 4y ago
      > What types of Arms? Does a tank fit in an Arm? What about a kamikaze drone? This was written in an era of mercenary warships (see: "privateer"), so yeah, as written it includes all of that.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        Privateers generally had a letter of marque from an actual government, otherwise they were just pirates. If gun owners need to get a letter of marque from their state government to own arms, I think the gun control people would be on board...
- dang 4y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

morgannewman 4y ago

mpweiher 4y ago

That's not a "loophole", that's called living in a country of laws with due process.

Panini_Jones 4y ago
> that's called living in a country of laws with due process. The loophole is that the company is allowed to continue breaking the law while the appeal is in progress.
- xvector 4y ago
  That's not a loophole, otherwise oppressive laws could be passed that curtail your ability to appeal.
- cronix 4y ago
  Not doing so would allow mere allegations to put your business on hold until the entire court process, all the way to the highest court, if applicable, is complete. It's not a loophole. It's a fundamental tenant of innocent until proven guilty.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
    This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.
    - indymike 4y ago
      >This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.
      - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

ROARosen 4y ago

Is there no concept of a preliminary injunction in the EU legal system?

rapht 4y ago

> So companies can flout the law for years, making massive profits, and continue to do so for as long as they can string along an appeal process? Seems like a pretty nice loophole. Actually, they may yet receive a hefty fine. The court ruled on the principle: now, each lower jurisdictions may take action based on that principle.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

They do risk mounting fines by continuing the practice.

pessimizer 4y ago

It seems fair, as long as the fines and penalties for continuing noncompliance are backdated to when the initial decision was made, even if they're only due after the last appeal fails. With that setup, if they're confident that they'll come out on top, they can keep tracking while appealing. If they're less confident, they'll pause tracking to prevent the buildup of fines.