2 ms·
The idea is pricing in the lost value. So whether its fines or they stand up compliance and see revenue loss from operational changes, that's what they could of
by nonethewiser 1y ago
The idea is pricing in the lost value. So whether its fines or they stand up compliance and see revenue loss from operational changes, that's what they could offset with new pricing.
- jacquesm 1y agoThere is no 'lost value'. There is illegal income.
- mastermage 1y agoYes we should not sugarcoat this. Money made due to illegal pragtices should not be regarded much different than for example money from money laundering.
- nonethewiser 1y agoDo you understand what I am saying? He's suggesting that the money Google does not make because of this regulation may be rolled into prices. The fact that eating the fees is not sustainable doesn't mean they have to take the margin hit for all associated costs. Whether or not Google is "losing value" (aka money) or losing "illegal income", which aren't mutually exclusive by the way, has nothing to do with that dynamic. They could, in theory, roll that difference into prices either way.
- blackqueeriroh 1y agoWhen you can be fined up to twenty percent of your worldwide revenue (not profits, revenue), you listen. This is the EC making clear they’re willing to rule against Google and fine them. Next time it’ll be the full initial 10% of worldwide revenue