4 ms·

Heh, such an American response. Sue everyone and everything, lawyers gets paid. But at the end of day, nothing changes. Meanwhile in EU, we have laws like NIS2

Heh, such an American response. Sue everyone and everything, lawyers gets paid. But at the end of day, nothing changes. Meanwhile in EU, we have laws like NIS2, where if negligent in non-compliance. Fines are 10mil. EUR or 2% of global annual revenue. Eg.: If Apple gets $8bil. fine, yep that changes quite a lot I think. :)

dfee 1y ago
The difference between the US and the EU being: the cost of negligence is known ahead of time?
uncletammy 1y ago
How does the EU solution make user's whole? At least with class actions, users get to see a few pennies. I'm not trying to make an argument against strong regulatory bodies. We need those for sure. It would just be nice if the users were compensated for the exploitation and abuse they're subjected to.
- devmor 1y ago
  The US solution does not make users whole and does not meaningfully change anything. The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior. I would rather have significantly less breaches of my information than a check for $6 in the mail every couple months.
  - Chiron1991 1y ago
    > The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior. Citation needed. I'd imagine they just add a tiny markup to their prices to pay the eventual fine instead of investing huge amounts of money into fixing their broken processes. Comparing the list of EU-issued fines against the respective companies' profits shows that they can simply afford to make those mistakes instead of preventing them.
    - lone-commenter 1y ago
      > they just add a tiny markup to their prices to pay the eventual fine instead Ironically, this counter-argument applies perfectly to the "US solution". On the contrary, EU's huge fines have a better chance of being effective.
    - theshrike79 1y ago
      Stock holders generally frown upon multi-billion euro fines and may want a change in management.
      - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        And it's probably securities fraud ;)
  - rubitxxx9 1y ago
    The EU solution provides incentive for the government to attack large businesses with lawsuits. That’s predatory and will lead to large businesses trying to lobby the EU to go after their competitors. That just seems dysfunctional.
  - newZWhoDis 1y ago
    >The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior How are those cookie consent popups working out?
    - devmor 1y ago
      It is a meaningful change, or you wouldn’t be talking about it. Meaningful does not mean a solution.
    - greycol 1y ago
      Great, they meant better acting corporations have no click or single click (dismiss-able with simple add-ons to proactively affirm the user's position) ribbons to get get rid of unwanted cookies. Let's be realistic anyone who hates those banners and hasn't bothered to do the google search and 5 minute task to get rid of them permanently (either enabling or disabling consent) is not having their political opinion changed by them, they are using them as an excuse to buttress their position of government bad or corporations malicious.
xeromal 1y ago
Agreed. It's unfortunate how litigious we are but it's the only language we speak apparently.
lupusreal 1y ago
Do either of these approaches actually solve the problem? I think companies won't take it seriously unless their executives do, and their executives won't unless they are personally punished in a way compensation can't compensate for. Cane them Singapore style.
neilv 1y ago
It's with American companies in mind. Though I expressly addressed that it isn't about lawyers getting paid, and also how this might change things (motivate companies to behave responsibly, in this regard) Basically, we have a high-corruption society, especially in 2025, but there's still vestiges of a system that can be leveraged in the public's interest, if you contort just so.

dfee 1y ago

The difference between the US and the EU being: the cost of negligence is known ahead of time?

uncletammy 1y ago

How does the EU solution make user's whole? At least with class actions, users get to see a few pennies. I'm not trying to make an argument against strong regulatory bodies. We need those for sure. It would just be nice if the users were compensated for the exploitation and abuse they're subjected to.

devmor 1y ago
The US solution does not make users whole and does not meaningfully change anything. The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior. I would rather have significantly less breaches of my information than a check for $6 in the mail every couple months.
- Chiron1991 1y ago
  > The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior. Citation needed. I'd imagine they just add a tiny markup to their prices to pay the eventual fine instead of investing huge amounts of money into fixing their broken processes. Comparing the list of EU-issued fines against the respective companies' profits shows that they can simply afford to make those mistakes instead of preventing them.
  - lone-commenter 1y ago
    > they just add a tiny markup to their prices to pay the eventual fine instead Ironically, this counter-argument applies perfectly to the "US solution". On the contrary, EU's huge fines have a better chance of being effective.
  - theshrike79 1y ago
    Stock holders generally frown upon multi-billion euro fines and may want a change in management.
    - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      And it's probably securities fraud ;)
- rubitxxx9 1y ago
  The EU solution provides incentive for the government to attack large businesses with lawsuits. That’s predatory and will lead to large businesses trying to lobby the EU to go after their competitors. That just seems dysfunctional.
- newZWhoDis 1y ago
  >The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior How are those cookie consent popups working out?
  - devmor 1y ago
    It is a meaningful change, or you wouldn’t be talking about it. Meaningful does not mean a solution.
  - greycol 1y ago
    Great, they meant better acting corporations have no click or single click (dismiss-able with simple add-ons to proactively affirm the user's position) ribbons to get get rid of unwanted cookies. Let's be realistic anyone who hates those banners and hasn't bothered to do the google search and 5 minute task to get rid of them permanently (either enabling or disabling consent) is not having their political opinion changed by them, they are using them as an excuse to buttress their position of government bad or corporations malicious.

xeromal 1y ago

Agreed. It's unfortunate how litigious we are but it's the only language we speak apparently.

lupusreal 1y ago

Do either of these approaches actually solve the problem? I think companies won't take it seriously unless their executives do, and their executives won't unless they are personally punished in a way compensation can't compensate for. Cane them Singapore style.

neilv 1y ago

It's with American companies in mind. Though I expressly addressed that it isn't about lawyers getting paid, and also how this might change things (motivate companies to behave responsibly, in this regard) Basically, we have a high-corruption society, especially in 2025, but there's still vestiges of a system that can be leveraged in the public's interest, if you contort just so.