3 ms·
Sure, but I kind of think fines might be the wrong kind of disincentive for businesses. This breeds a cost-of-doing-business mentality. Lying to customers and b
by cam_l 2y ago
Sure, but I kind of think fines might be the wrong kind of disincentive for businesses. This breeds a cost-of-doing-business mentality. Lying to customers and breaking the law should be existentially dangerous to them.
Perhaps some of the many privileges we afford big businesses should be clawed back once they show they are not trustworthy. Things which make it more difficult for the executives to do their jobs, easier for regulators to catch them if they do it again, and easier for the competitors to eat their lunch.
Jail time for egregious offences is not a bad idea either. In AU, in the lead up to passing a bill to make wage theft a criminal offence, a lot of big companies magically reimbursed workers tens of millions of dollars for 'accidental' underpayment going back 10yrs or more. All of a sudden it wasn't just other peoples money they were playing with.
- emacsen 2y agoI agree with you, and I'd like to offer two additional thoughts. Firstly, I believe that one of the reasons these large companies have moved to arbitration is that it lets them get away with more, even if they lose. If they lose, they only lose money, but the case is sealed, and the judge can't issue an injunction. If it goes to court, a judge can award more than just money- they can order the business to stop making certain claims. If they continue despite the order, they could be found in contempt of court, and that would be serious. Secondly, I believe that only criminal liability when there is willful misconduct will deter white collar criminals. In practice, that means if a company does something bad, their CEO or other board members may go to jail. I believe this could be a huge deterrent.