4 ms·

This 4% rule really has teeth. It is even more interesting for Microsoft, where this would probably eat most of the profit.

by quonn 4y ago

meghan_rain 4y ago
God please make them consider Microsoft the owner and calc revenue based on Microsoft's global revenue.
- rvz 4y ago
  They should and both O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com and Microsoft were caught by this regulator in the EU. If this regulator knows what is best, they should definitely fine Microsoft 4% of their global revenues on top of that reckless chat history leakage incident O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com had. There is a reason why Google launched Bard in non-EU countries.
  - rvnx 4y ago
    The poor quality of Bard answers and the fact it is able to speak only English may most likely be a more important factor
menzoic 4y ago
Capped at 20 million euros
- Veen 4y ago
  Not so. The maximum fine for serious GDPR infringements is up to 20 million Euros or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher.
- nemetroid 4y ago
  > […], whichever amount is higher. https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/
- Robin_Message 4y ago
  https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/ - 20 million euros or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher. It's not capped; it's designed to be more harmful to smaller businesses†, but it does scale with business size. † I mean, that's probably not the exact intention, but that is the effect of a huge monetary cap alongside the proportion of turnover. I also think 4% of turnover is problematic given the old Pinto equation (https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/autos/2008/oct/17/pinto-memo-its-cheaper-let-them-burn/ https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/autos/2008/oct/17/pinto-memo... ); I'd rather a cap set in the region of 150% of global gross profit, but capitalists would never go for that.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  No. You can be fined in the billions under the GDPR if your turnover warrants it.
golemotron 4y ago
I wonder why corporations that don't have a physical presence in other jurisdictions play along. Technically, a country can block services they don't like. It really is their problem if their citizens are choosing to use a foreign service. Is there a legal reason to play along? Trade agreement violation? Or, is it just a matter of wanting to keep those markets.
- salawat 4y ago
  Corporations are suffered to exist at the whim of the State. Without corporate recognition, personal liability snaps into sharp relief, and suddenly guys with guns may end up knocking at your door for God knows what. Also, yes. No one wants to lock themselves out of a market over what could be easily remedied through implementation of a compliance program. That's leaving money on the table. In short, walk with care on the feet of Caesar. For you are small, and once roused to anger, said train has not been known to quickly brake.

This 4% rule really has teeth. It is even more interesting for Microsoft, where this would probably eat most of the profit.

by quonn 4y ago

This 4% rule really has teeth. It is even more interesting for Microsoft, where this would probably eat most of the profit.

meghan_rain 4y ago

God please make them consider Microsoft the owner and calc revenue based on Microsoft's global revenue.

rvz 4y ago
They should and both O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com and Microsoft were caught by this regulator in the EU. If this regulator knows what is best, they should definitely fine Microsoft 4% of their global revenues on top of that reckless chat history leakage incident O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com had. There is a reason why Google launched Bard in non-EU countries.
- rvnx 4y ago
  The poor quality of Bard answers and the fact it is able to speak only English may most likely be a more important factor

menzoic 4y ago

Capped at 20 million euros

Veen 4y ago
Not so. The maximum fine for serious GDPR infringements is up to 20 million Euros or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher.
nemetroid 4y ago
> […], whichever amount is higher. https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/
Robin_Message 4y ago
https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/ - 20 million euros or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher. It's not capped; it's designed to be more harmful to smaller businesses†, but it does scale with business size. † I mean, that's probably not the exact intention, but that is the effect of a huge monetary cap alongside the proportion of turnover. I also think 4% of turnover is problematic given the old Pinto equation (https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/autos/2008/oct/17/pinto-memo-its-cheaper-let-them-burn/ https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/autos/2008/oct/17/pinto-memo... ); I'd rather a cap set in the region of 150% of global gross profit, but capitalists would never go for that.
jacquesm 4y ago
No. You can be fined in the billions under the GDPR if your turnover warrants it.

golemotron 4y ago

I wonder why corporations that don't have a physical presence in other jurisdictions play along. Technically, a country can block services they don't like. It really is their problem if their citizens are choosing to use a foreign service. Is there a legal reason to play along? Trade agreement violation? Or, is it just a matter of wanting to keep those markets.

salawat 4y ago
Corporations are suffered to exist at the whim of the State. Without corporate recognition, personal liability snaps into sharp relief, and suddenly guys with guns may end up knocking at your door for God knows what. Also, yes. No one wants to lock themselves out of a market over what could be easily remedied through implementation of a compliance program. That's leaving money on the table. In short, walk with care on the feet of Caesar. For you are small, and once roused to anger, said train has not been known to quickly brake.