3 ms·
So I’ve got to ask, is malicious compliance a real actionable legal theory or is it just something that has been written about but never prosecuted? It reads l
by SllX 3y ago
So I’ve got to ask, is malicious compliance a real actionable legal theory or is it just something that has been written about but never prosecuted?
It reads like one of those buzzwords that doesn’t actually mean anything useful in a the context of a court of law, at least as a prosecutable offense, but gets talked about like it does, because the statement itself reads like an oxymoron. You’re either compliant with the law or you’re not, and malicious is subjective. Am I off base by saying that? What am I missing?
- ahartmetz 3y agoWhether "malicious compliance" is a legal term or not, the intent of the law does count and transparent workarounds are not appreciated. It depends on the area of law, traditions, common sense etc how much that ia true, but in general, disregarding transparent workarounds is a thing.
- SllX 3y agoYeah, except the text matters a whole lot more than the intent because that’s what you’re going to read and reference when determining how to comply. If the intent is just for Apple to roll over and show their belly, they’re not really obligated to do that. A legislative body can always rewrite laws passed by the same legislative body if the first set of laws isn’t working out the way they hoped, and the EU is a supranational entity formed by treaty between peoples with few in the way of what can be called shared legal traditions or sensibilities so you have to think the text has to really matter here. So if it comes down to whether Apple is compliant, wouldn’t you just stack up their measures against the law as written? Which would then mean compliance is compliance, and the onus then falls on whatever prosecutorial authority is empowered here to show that it is not.