3 ms·

> If companies fail to comply with the European Accessibility Act they could be hit with fines and even prison sentences for senior staff. That seems extremely

> If companies fail to comply with the European Accessibility Act they could be hit with fines and even prison sentences for senior staff. That seems extremely excessive. A prime example of regulatory overreach.

superice 1y ago
That depends. I'm perfectly happy as a European business owner that it is made very clear that accessible software is not optional, and even if you think it is expensive, that you can't just sit around and wait for the fine to hit. The reality is that if you're ignoring this stuff, you are effectively eliminating a significant chunk of the population from participating in public life. It's about as bad as not having wheelchair ramps in public places, except the same software runs everywhere, so it's not the one virtual 'building' missing it, but all buildings made by the same architect.
tossandthrow 1y ago
This is likely just you who are not too familiar with how law is practiced in the EU. In the EU the directives define a max range. Eg. 10% of global revenue or 20 million EUR whichever is higher. Then the court figures out to what extend the company broke the law. This system is needed to make sure that there are not some member states that are more forgiving and provides a competitive edge for companies to move there.
- ryanjshaw 1y ago
  A prison sentence for not providing captions on an OF video isn’t overreach? I’m not sure if I’m being hyperbolic or not, the article didn’t go into any meaningful depth.
  - riffraff 1y ago
    I bet you a beer nobody will go to jail for not captioning an onlyfans video, because that is not how regulations work. There is a range of fines, and a minor non-repeat infringement will obviously not get you the maximum penalty. But consider the case where a person cannot book a medical appointment, or ask a refund, or claim insurance. The company will be fined, and if the offense does not get fixed than _at some point_ the responsible person may face jail time.
    - noirscape 1y ago
      To given an idea, one of the more relevant lawsuits on the GDPR was about linking to Google Fonts/Google CDN resources on a blog. The judge in that case held that doing so is a privacy violation since the webpage now connects to Google without the users' consent. Total fine? €150. An extremely token amount because the blog owner obviously didn't intend to break the law. Quite the contrast to the million dollar fines you hear about for big tech companies.
  - guappa 1y ago
    According to you blind people have no right to a bank account?
  - Mordisquitos 1y ago
    This is the first time I've heard about these new rules on EU digital accessibility and yet I am absolutely sure that you are being hyperbolic about "a prison sentence for not providing captions on an OF video". Assume good faith.
    - paganel 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - edent 1y ago
    Do you understand how laws work? Laws are not computer code. They're not run, unthinkingly, by a judge acting as a CPU. We have humans (like juries) looking to see whether an offence was committed. Are they going to find someone guilty of an offence like this? Then we have judges who look at the whole facts of a case to determine a sentence[0]. Would they think it proportionate for a first-time offender to be imprisoned for this? On the other hand, if a large content creator has been repeatedly warned not to break the law and they've ignored those warnings, why shouldn't they be punished? [0] Yes, some jurisdictions have sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums.
  - Mashimo 1y ago
    What makes you think that exact scenario would result in a prison sentence?
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    Again, it seems like you don't understand how this stuff works. "providing captions on an OF video" likely will not lead to full non-compliance. Anywho, to what extend I agree with stuff like this is another conversation. Just don't misrepresent how the legal system works.
inigoalonso 1y ago
These penalties are essential to counterbalance the financial trade-off companies often make by deprioritising accessibility. Without serious consequences, it’s rational for executives to cut costs at the expense of inclusion. This ensures accountability at the level where those decisions are made.
- dataflow 1y ago
  > These penalties are essential to counterbalance the financial trade-off companies often make by deprioritising accessibility. Without serious consequences, it’s rational for executives to cut costs at the expense of inclusion. This ensures accountability at the level where those decisions are made. You can impose arbitrarily high financial penalties, or even shut down the business, and that's plenty enough for the incentives to tilt in the correct direction. But prison? How the heck is that necessary for this?
Akashic101 1y ago
The possibility of jail-time only exists in Ireland, no other country in the EU. Even there, prison-time is the maximum, not a guarantee. Courts may opt for fines, suspended sentences, or probation, I don't think at any point will anyone go to jail for this, especially considering this is only a possibility after a conviction and repeated non-compliance in important sectors like healthcare, banking or transport.
amarcheschi 1y ago
As far as I can understand the punishments are implemented in a per country basis, I've found only Ireland could put people in prison for that https://reciteme.com/news/european-accessibility-act-fines/ https://reciteme.com/news/european-accessibility-act-fines/
rado 1y ago
It's discrimination, e.g. the web is perfectly suited to be used with keyboard only, yet companies make it impossible.
andrepd 1y ago
On the contrary, the history of the last 20 years of capitalism has been that of nobody in charge going to jail no matter what they do. 2008 meltdown, billions of people suffered but not one administrator, trader, or CEO went to jail. Big companies from oil to tech also routinely get caught in fraud or anticompetitive behaviour and—again—nobody gets jailed, the company merely gets fined a fraction of what they earned due to their behaviour, which obviously is no deterrent.
Mashimo 1y ago
Is it because it's digital? For example if a shopping mall would refuse to build a wheelchair ramp / elevator, would you still consider it being excessive?
pjmlp 1y ago
I rather have this than capitalism takes everything.
123yawaworht456 1y ago
it's not overreach, it's deliberate racketeering. fining American companies is a non-insignificant chunk of EU budget at this point, so new nebulous laws and rules need to be invented to keep the racket up.

superice 1y ago

That depends. I'm perfectly happy as a European business owner that it is made very clear that accessible software is not optional, and even if you think it is expensive, that you can't just sit around and wait for the fine to hit. The reality is that if you're ignoring this stuff, you are effectively eliminating a significant chunk of the population from participating in public life. It's about as bad as not having wheelchair ramps in public places, except the same software runs everywhere, so it's not the one virtual 'building' missing it, but all buildings made by the same architect.

tossandthrow 1y ago

This is likely just you who are not too familiar with how law is practiced in the EU. In the EU the directives define a max range. Eg. 10% of global revenue or 20 million EUR whichever is higher. Then the court figures out to what extend the company broke the law. This system is needed to make sure that there are not some member states that are more forgiving and provides a competitive edge for companies to move there.

ryanjshaw 1y ago
A prison sentence for not providing captions on an OF video isn’t overreach? I’m not sure if I’m being hyperbolic or not, the article didn’t go into any meaningful depth.
- riffraff 1y ago
  I bet you a beer nobody will go to jail for not captioning an onlyfans video, because that is not how regulations work. There is a range of fines, and a minor non-repeat infringement will obviously not get you the maximum penalty. But consider the case where a person cannot book a medical appointment, or ask a refund, or claim insurance. The company will be fined, and if the offense does not get fixed than _at some point_ the responsible person may face jail time.
  - noirscape 1y ago
    To given an idea, one of the more relevant lawsuits on the GDPR was about linking to Google Fonts/Google CDN resources on a blog. The judge in that case held that doing so is a privacy violation since the webpage now connects to Google without the users' consent. Total fine? €150. An extremely token amount because the blog owner obviously didn't intend to break the law. Quite the contrast to the million dollar fines you hear about for big tech companies.
- guappa 1y ago
  According to you blind people have no right to a bank account?
- Mordisquitos 1y ago
  This is the first time I've heard about these new rules on EU digital accessibility and yet I am absolutely sure that you are being hyperbolic about "a prison sentence for not providing captions on an OF video". Assume good faith.
  - paganel 1y ago
    [flagged]
- edent 1y ago
  Do you understand how laws work? Laws are not computer code. They're not run, unthinkingly, by a judge acting as a CPU. We have humans (like juries) looking to see whether an offence was committed. Are they going to find someone guilty of an offence like this? Then we have judges who look at the whole facts of a case to determine a sentence[0]. Would they think it proportionate for a first-time offender to be imprisoned for this? On the other hand, if a large content creator has been repeatedly warned not to break the law and they've ignored those warnings, why shouldn't they be punished? [0] Yes, some jurisdictions have sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums.
- Mashimo 1y ago
  What makes you think that exact scenario would result in a prison sentence?
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  Again, it seems like you don't understand how this stuff works. "providing captions on an OF video" likely will not lead to full non-compliance. Anywho, to what extend I agree with stuff like this is another conversation. Just don't misrepresent how the legal system works.

inigoalonso 1y ago

These penalties are essential to counterbalance the financial trade-off companies often make by deprioritising accessibility. Without serious consequences, it’s rational for executives to cut costs at the expense of inclusion. This ensures accountability at the level where those decisions are made.

dataflow 1y ago
> These penalties are essential to counterbalance the financial trade-off companies often make by deprioritising accessibility. Without serious consequences, it’s rational for executives to cut costs at the expense of inclusion. This ensures accountability at the level where those decisions are made. You can impose arbitrarily high financial penalties, or even shut down the business, and that's plenty enough for the incentives to tilt in the correct direction. But prison? How the heck is that necessary for this?

Akashic101 1y ago

The possibility of jail-time only exists in Ireland, no other country in the EU. Even there, prison-time is the maximum, not a guarantee. Courts may opt for fines, suspended sentences, or probation, I don't think at any point will anyone go to jail for this, especially considering this is only a possibility after a conviction and repeated non-compliance in important sectors like healthcare, banking or transport.

amarcheschi 1y ago

As far as I can understand the punishments are implemented in a per country basis, I've found only Ireland could put people in prison for that https://reciteme.com/news/european-accessibility-act-fines/ https://reciteme.com/news/european-accessibility-act-fines/

rado 1y ago

It's discrimination, e.g. the web is perfectly suited to be used with keyboard only, yet companies make it impossible.

andrepd 1y ago

On the contrary, the history of the last 20 years of capitalism has been that of nobody in charge going to jail no matter what they do. 2008 meltdown, billions of people suffered but not one administrator, trader, or CEO went to jail. Big companies from oil to tech also routinely get caught in fraud or anticompetitive behaviour and—again—nobody gets jailed, the company merely gets fined a fraction of what they earned due to their behaviour, which obviously is no deterrent.

Mashimo 1y ago

Is it because it's digital? For example if a shopping mall would refuse to build a wheelchair ramp / elevator, would you still consider it being excessive?

pjmlp 1y ago

I rather have this than capitalism takes everything.

123yawaworht456 1y ago

it's not overreach, it's deliberate racketeering. fining American companies is a non-insignificant chunk of EU budget at this point, so new nebulous laws and rules need to be invented to keep the racket up.