4 ms·
Not sure what you're thinking it'd achieve. Apple already has a subsidiary like that[0]. And sure, that subsidiary is the only part that the EU can directly act
by jsnell 3y ago
Not sure what you're thinking it'd achieve. Apple already has a subsidiary like that[0]. And sure, that subsidiary is the only part that the EU can directly act on.
But the EU can definitely take into account the entirety of Apple when deciding what to do. For example, when Apple gets fined for violating the DMA, the maximum penalties are going to be based on their global revenue, not just the EU revenue going through their Irish subsidiary.
If you're proposing a fully independent public company rather than a subsidiary of Apple, it's true that the separate company wouldn't actually be able to fix any of their possible DMA violations. But that just means they'd not be complying, not that they wouldn't be breaking the law or that they're somehow immune.
- scarface_74 3y agoThe EU has no jurisdiction over what a company does outside of the EU or does not have a business nexus in the EU. Just like the US couldn’t have jurisdiction over a company that only operates in the EU. Apple could easily not make a subsidiary. But make it a fully independent legal entity that resales in the EU.
- jsnell 3y agoHow will that entity continue operating in the EU when its only business is selling devices that are infringing on EU laws, and it is unable to reach compliance? It can't. Either the company shuts down, stops selling Apple devices, or the proceeds of their illegal sales will be garnished before they can pay Apple. It is a plan that is functionally identical to Apple leaving the EU. Apple can choose not to operate in the EU. That's a totally legit and acceptable outcome. But that means they have to actually give up that revenue. Any attempt at laundering it will just mean that the penalties apply to whatever entity they try to use for the regulatory evasion. (Or I guess shrink their presence to do small that the DMA no longer applies. But again, this is Apple. They'll rather hand out user data to the Chinese government than leave China and all their juicy money.)
- scarface_74 3y agoThe separately owned will have an App Store compliant with the DMA.
- jsnell 3y ago(As an aside, I think this discussion was about browsers, not about app stores. It matters a bit, because for browsers, the main complaint on Apple's proposal seems to be the geo-restriction, while for app stores nobody is complaining about that but there are plenty of other issues.) If the EC decides to interpret the rules as requiring compliance globally rather than just within the EU, and the courts were to uphold it, it would be irrelevant that Apple's sales are being done via some shell company. If anything, it would probably be considered worse, since it'd be a clear attempt at circumventing the law. The products that the shell company would be selling would be found illegal, and one way or other the operation would stop. And the effect would be that Apple would have left the EU. If your plan were actually a thing, every American company would already be doing it just to shield themselves against GDPR (which has fines based on global revenue, not EU revenue). But they don't do it, because it wouldn't work.
- scarface_74 3y agoCompanies are already blocking access to their sites in the EU because of the GPDR
- jsnell 3y agoIndeed! They're doing the one thing I've said in each of my previous four messages in this thread is the way to avoid being bound by EU laws: by not doing business in the EU. What they aren't doing is trying your plan of creating a shell company to break the laws on their behalf.
- scarface_74 3y agoDo you think that EU could have enforced browser choice on Microsoft worldwide? Patents? Copyrights?