5 ms·

ChatGPT, Roblox to fall under strictest EU rules for platforms

74 points by ch_sm 2mo ago

ThiloBa 2mo ago
[dead]
Doohickey-d 2mo ago
https://archive.is/58cyT https://archive.is/58cyT
LoganDark 2mo ago
> Companies that breach the DSA risk fines of as much as 6% of their annual global sales. It's nuts that this is all they can manage. Like, take 30% or 40% -- that might actually encourage compliance. I think they'll comply, but almost entirely not because of small fines.
- cbg0 2mo ago
  The point of fines is to correct bad behavior, not to bankrupt businesses which create jobs.
  - karmelapple 2mo ago
    6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior. What corrects bad behavior? The threat of serious consequences to a business.
    - benoau 2mo ago
      For Roblox their 6% of global turnover ($5b) is $300m which while it seems trivial, is 30% of their profit ($1b). For a company like Google this fine would be in the vicinity of $24 billion, which would be a bit over 20% of their annual profit. So for companies that have to answer to shareholders this is already a pretty big deterrent, but just in case if they reject compliance it becomes a periodic penalty!
      - buzer 2mo ago
        Of one year. How many years does it take complete the investigation and let courts handle appeals? I assume they do not need to change behavior nor can the fine increase during the appeals.
        benoau 2mo ago
        I don't know, there's certainly mixed results so far for the DMA which has harsher penalties and none specifically for how this would play out with the DSA. We've seen Zuckerburg pivot from openly pledging to defy the EU [1] and then presenting compliant plans six months later to avoid the the periodic fine [2]. But we've also seen Apple in a bid to avoid the periodic fine imposing a ~20% commission [3] on third party payments after their 27% fee was ruled illegal and they were told it must be free [4]. The investigation into that has taken a year now despite being immediately perceived as noncompliant by many developers and ressembling what Google was recently fined €430 million for [5] and Apple seems to feel no pressure to change it. I guess what happens next to Apple will decide if companies fear this regulation, the periodic fine they were due if they didn't drop the 27% fee was touted to be up to $50m/day retroactively for the entire noncompliance period, which is now at least 400 days so lots of opportunity to send a message. [1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-wont-tweak-pay-or-consent-model-further-despite-risk-eu-fines-sources-say-2025-07-11/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-offer-choices-personal-facebook-instagram-ads-eu-says-2025-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-offer-choices-personal... [3] https://daringfireball.net/2025/06/apple_app_store_policy_updates_dma https://daringfireball.net/2025/06/apple_app_store_policy_up... [4] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100109_929.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/23/eu-fines-google-for-competition-breaches-over-search-and-apps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/23/eu-fines-...
      - karmelapple 2mo ago
        > 30% of their profit If your company is significantly breaking the law, should the company have profit for that year? Paying the bills is one thing, but profit to shareholders?
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      > 6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. 6% of annual, global sales, as an extra cost from one jurisdiction, which can impose this multiple times if there are multiple breaches, and where they're not the only jurisdiction with such rules, and the DSA isn't the only ruleset where fines are based on global revenue even in the EU (famously, GDPR). Or, to put it another way: 16 such fines in one year and you've lost 100% of your revenue. You don't get to make up for this by raising prices, because that just means "100% of your revenue" is now a bigger number.
    - cbg0 2mo ago
      That 6% could be more than your profit margin, depending on what business you operate. There's nothing saying that fines can't keep coming if your behavior isn't corrected, it's not just one fine then they leave you alone.
    - Aurornis 2mo ago
      > it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. Not an accurate analogy. This is a fine on sales, not expenditures. It would be like fining you 6% of your pre-tax income, not doubling sales tax on things you buy. > I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior. If the government threatened to take 6% of your pre-tax income if you violated a set of laws, would you laugh it off and refuse to change your behavior? Or would you make an effort to not incur those fines?
      - skeptic_ai 2mo ago
        Laugh it off. Especially when I can earn a ton more off doing it anyway. 6% is cost of doing business. I’ll earn 50% more by doing the sketchy shit.
        Aurornis 2mo ago
        These laws are not covering things that increase sales by 50% If that was true, sales would fall to 67% of the pre-law sales. That doesn’t happen. It’s a silly claim. It would be like the government taking 6% of your total compensation for breaking the speed limit. You could try to speed everywhere to save time but if you get caught it’s going to hurt. It’s not a “increase sales 50%” scenario. You’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist.
  - throwatdem12311 2mo ago
    6% of sales is just “cost of doing business”. Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.
    - chronogram 2mo ago
      A fine doesn't give immunity for the future. You pay the fine for the past behaviour, then you start paying fines of up to 5% of daily global revenue for every day you keep being non-compliant. That's the start. The end is not doing business.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
  - ndriscoll 2mo ago
    At some point if they don't follow the law, you actually do want to dismantle them (perhaps by bankrupting via fines). Jobs where the function is to make society worse and perform illegal actions are not actually desirable. It completely makes sense to eliminate those jobs, and possibly jail the people who created them and the people who worked them. Like if you're building gambling systems for 7 year olds then yes I think you should lose your job and then some. You the programmer, your product manager, your people manager, all the way up the chain. Everyone who participated should be individually accountable.
  - vitally3643 2mo ago
    Slaps on the wrist haven't effected meaningful change in the last several decades so at this point yeah, the penalties for breaking the law should be just as disastrous and life altering for a big company as it is for you and me.
- atoav 2mo ago
  I am for more maths in laws like these: frist_fine = 0.06 × anual_global_sales fine(n) = first_fine * n^x And the exponent x is to be chosen by how harsh you want to be. Repeat offenders will quickly run out of money as long as your exponent is reasonably bigger than 1. If we take an exponent of 2 a repeat offense by OpenAI would look like this: 1st offence: EUR 1.50 billion (6%) 2nd offence: EUR 6.00 billion (24%) 3rd offence: EUR 13.50 billion (54%) 4th offence: EUR 24.00 billion (96%) 5th offence: EUR 37.50 billion (150%) 6th offence: EUR 54.00 billion (216%)
  - Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
    If you tell them their expenses beforehand, they'll budget them in, though.
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      How do you budget for 216% of your gross revenue? "We lose money on every deal, but we plan to make it up in volume" was one of the infamous quotes from the dot.com bubble.
    - atoav 2mo ago
      Sure. You earn 5k a month. The fine is 10k a month. I'd like to see you "budget that in". It is hard to "budget in" a expense that is multiple time your earnings. Especially if that expense is growing exponentially each time.. But shows that people still don't understand exponential functions, even on this platform. We are truly doomed.
- luke5441 2mo ago
  Note that this is of "sales" not of profit. So for OpenAI this would be 1.5$ billion. ( based on recent PR spin sales number)
- throwayay4929 2mo ago
  "This year the European Union will again make more money from fining US tech companies Than from the total tax income from Europe's own public tech companies!" https://x.com/levelsio/status/2080314960656159018 https://x.com/levelsio/status/2080314960656159018
  - officialchicken 2mo ago
    This isn't the first year either; maybe US tech companies should start obeying the laws.
  - benoau 2mo ago
    What that tweet doesn't mention is how much "big tech" has been fined/settled in the US - which is also billions of dollars collectively for privacy, competition and other issues they created.
datakan 2mo ago
"must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission." This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.
- WarmWash 2mo ago
  It's all fun and games until you are technologically stunted and entirely dependent on others for it.
  - 3form 2mo ago
    What do you mean by "until"? I would argue that this situation is the _result_ of being stunted and dependent in the first place.
- poisonborz 2mo ago
  For billion dollar US megacorporations? Yes, it better be, finally (even though this is a slap on the wrist they will pay). Look at China's rules for internet companies there. Or how friendly the US was with TikTok.
  - villish 2mo ago
    They are slaps on the wrists AND shake downs. The fines aren't to 'correct' bad behavior. Look at the EU delivery apps being found to participate in a cartel. They received a large fine but still allowed to keep what they gained and merged companies.
    - Roark66 2mo ago
      You know there is such a thing as law, "EU" can't just block a merger or take away their profits beyond a certain fee. The fee is the only enforcement mechanism in the law. If you decide it is worth for you as a company to pay the fee and continue to break the law there isn't much that can be done except change the law to increase the fee.
  - 2mo ago
himata4113 2mo ago
Roblox should be outright banned in the EU or at least the top 100 games all qualify for what would be considered lootboxes/gambling and generally predatory behavior. Basically every single action you can do has a "robux" alternative which is faster/better + boosts cost robux. Then there's the worst of them all: trading card games. Another problem is that nothing carries over between games so as the algorithm shifts you're forced to spend robux all over again.
- voxic11 2mo ago
  I agree pay to win games suck, its the one feature which will make me instantly drop a game. But pay to win isn't gambling, afaik you can't earn robux by wagering robux you can only earn worthless in-game rewards.
  - himata4113 2mo ago
    No, it's straight up gambling mechanics. Open any trading card game and tell me that it is not filled with mechanics that effectively resemble gambling.
  - svelle 2mo ago
    How are loot boxes different from slot machines? The underlying psychological mechanics are very similar if not the same.
  - zamadatix 2mo ago
    You don't have to win money for it to be gambling. If there are cosmetics someone wants but has to pay for only a chance to get them then it's gambling with the value they are betting on winning being the cosmetic they want to win.
  - fl0id 2mo ago
    You don't need to "wager" robux for it to be gambling. You pay real money for robux (or whatever intermediate "currency") then spend robux to buy lootboxes (for example) which then by having very bad odds to get the thing you actually want, counts as gambling.
maxwwwt 2mo ago
Parents who let their kids play Roblox stun me. That is a cesspit of pedophiles, gambling, child exploitation, and bullying.
- thebigspacefuck 2mo ago
  Relevant Chris Hansen documentary https://youtu.be/84B-MPFaj5Y https://youtu.be/84B-MPFaj5Y
- ravenstine 2mo ago
  I'm not even sure I'd let my kids (if I had any :() play Roblox. People seem to just let their kids play it for hours without interacting with anyone, and when I do try and play it with kids of friends, etc., the games they play within it are pretty much all low effort trash. I get that creating and sharing games within it is sort of the point, but I don't think I've ever seen something with that much slop, and no one seems to have a problem with kids spending hours wallowing in slop. But yes, it's one big child exploitation platform.
rimworld 2mo ago
age verify everyone, then link this id to a digital wallet --easy

74 points by ch_sm 2mo ago

ThiloBa 2mo ago

[dead]

Doohickey-d 2mo ago

https://archive.is/58cyT https://archive.is/58cyT

LoganDark 2mo ago

> Companies that breach the DSA risk fines of as much as 6% of their annual global sales. It's nuts that this is all they can manage. Like, take 30% or 40% -- that might actually encourage compliance. I think they'll comply, but almost entirely not because of small fines.

cbg0 2mo ago
The point of fines is to correct bad behavior, not to bankrupt businesses which create jobs.
- karmelapple 2mo ago
  6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior. What corrects bad behavior? The threat of serious consequences to a business.
  - benoau 2mo ago
    For Roblox their 6% of global turnover ($5b) is $300m which while it seems trivial, is 30% of their profit ($1b). For a company like Google this fine would be in the vicinity of $24 billion, which would be a bit over 20% of their annual profit. So for companies that have to answer to shareholders this is already a pretty big deterrent, but just in case if they reject compliance it becomes a periodic penalty!
    - buzer 2mo ago
      Of one year. How many years does it take complete the investigation and let courts handle appeals? I assume they do not need to change behavior nor can the fine increase during the appeals.
      - benoau 2mo ago
        I don't know, there's certainly mixed results so far for the DMA which has harsher penalties and none specifically for how this would play out with the DSA. We've seen Zuckerburg pivot from openly pledging to defy the EU [1] and then presenting compliant plans six months later to avoid the the periodic fine [2]. But we've also seen Apple in a bid to avoid the periodic fine imposing a ~20% commission [3] on third party payments after their 27% fee was ruled illegal and they were told it must be free [4]. The investigation into that has taken a year now despite being immediately perceived as noncompliant by many developers and ressembling what Google was recently fined €430 million for [5] and Apple seems to feel no pressure to change it. I guess what happens next to Apple will decide if companies fear this regulation, the periodic fine they were due if they didn't drop the 27% fee was touted to be up to $50m/day retroactively for the entire noncompliance period, which is now at least 400 days so lots of opportunity to send a message. [1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-wont-tweak-pay-or-consent-model-further-despite-risk-eu-fines-sources-say-2025-07-11/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-offer-choices-personal-facebook-instagram-ads-eu-says-2025-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-offer-choices-personal... [3] https://daringfireball.net/2025/06/apple_app_store_policy_updates_dma https://daringfireball.net/2025/06/apple_app_store_policy_up... [4] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100109_929.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/23/eu-fines-google-for-competition-breaches-over-search-and-apps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/23/eu-fines-...
    - karmelapple 2mo ago
      > 30% of their profit If your company is significantly breaking the law, should the company have profit for that year? Paying the bills is one thing, but profit to shareholders?
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > 6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. 6% of annual, global sales, as an extra cost from one jurisdiction, which can impose this multiple times if there are multiple breaches, and where they're not the only jurisdiction with such rules, and the DSA isn't the only ruleset where fines are based on global revenue even in the EU (famously, GDPR). Or, to put it another way: 16 such fines in one year and you've lost 100% of your revenue. You don't get to make up for this by raising prices, because that just means "100% of your revenue" is now a bigger number.
  - cbg0 2mo ago
    That 6% could be more than your profit margin, depending on what business you operate. There's nothing saying that fines can't keep coming if your behavior isn't corrected, it's not just one fine then they leave you alone.
  - Aurornis 2mo ago
    > it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. Not an accurate analogy. This is a fine on sales, not expenditures. It would be like fining you 6% of your pre-tax income, not doubling sales tax on things you buy. > I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior. If the government threatened to take 6% of your pre-tax income if you violated a set of laws, would you laugh it off and refuse to change your behavior? Or would you make an effort to not incur those fines?
    - skeptic_ai 2mo ago
      Laugh it off. Especially when I can earn a ton more off doing it anyway. 6% is cost of doing business. I’ll earn 50% more by doing the sketchy shit.
      - Aurornis 2mo ago
        These laws are not covering things that increase sales by 50% If that was true, sales would fall to 67% of the pre-law sales. That doesn’t happen. It’s a silly claim. It would be like the government taking 6% of your total compensation for breaking the speed limit. You could try to speed everywhere to save time but if you get caught it’s going to hurt. It’s not a “increase sales 50%” scenario. You’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist.
- throwatdem12311 2mo ago
  6% of sales is just “cost of doing business”. Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.
  - chronogram 2mo ago
    A fine doesn't give immunity for the future. You pay the fine for the past behaviour, then you start paying fines of up to 5% of daily global revenue for every day you keep being non-compliant. That's the start. The end is not doing business.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
- ndriscoll 2mo ago
  At some point if they don't follow the law, you actually do want to dismantle them (perhaps by bankrupting via fines). Jobs where the function is to make society worse and perform illegal actions are not actually desirable. It completely makes sense to eliminate those jobs, and possibly jail the people who created them and the people who worked them. Like if you're building gambling systems for 7 year olds then yes I think you should lose your job and then some. You the programmer, your product manager, your people manager, all the way up the chain. Everyone who participated should be individually accountable.
- vitally3643 2mo ago
  Slaps on the wrist haven't effected meaningful change in the last several decades so at this point yeah, the penalties for breaking the law should be just as disastrous and life altering for a big company as it is for you and me.
atoav 2mo ago
I am for more maths in laws like these: frist_fine = 0.06 × anual_global_sales fine(n) = first_fine * n^x And the exponent x is to be chosen by how harsh you want to be. Repeat offenders will quickly run out of money as long as your exponent is reasonably bigger than 1. If we take an exponent of 2 a repeat offense by OpenAI would look like this: 1st offence: EUR 1.50 billion (6%) 2nd offence: EUR 6.00 billion (24%) 3rd offence: EUR 13.50 billion (54%) 4th offence: EUR 24.00 billion (96%) 5th offence: EUR 37.50 billion (150%) 6th offence: EUR 54.00 billion (216%)
- Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
  If you tell them their expenses beforehand, they'll budget them in, though.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    How do you budget for 216% of your gross revenue? "We lose money on every deal, but we plan to make it up in volume" was one of the infamous quotes from the dot.com bubble.
  - atoav 2mo ago
    Sure. You earn 5k a month. The fine is 10k a month. I'd like to see you "budget that in". It is hard to "budget in" a expense that is multiple time your earnings. Especially if that expense is growing exponentially each time.. But shows that people still don't understand exponential functions, even on this platform. We are truly doomed.
luke5441 2mo ago
Note that this is of "sales" not of profit. So for OpenAI this would be 1.5$ billion. ( based on recent PR spin sales number)
throwayay4929 2mo ago
"This year the European Union will again make more money from fining US tech companies Than from the total tax income from Europe's own public tech companies!" https://x.com/levelsio/status/2080314960656159018 https://x.com/levelsio/status/2080314960656159018
- officialchicken 2mo ago
  This isn't the first year either; maybe US tech companies should start obeying the laws.
- benoau 2mo ago
  What that tweet doesn't mention is how much "big tech" has been fined/settled in the US - which is also billions of dollars collectively for privacy, competition and other issues they created.

datakan 2mo ago

"must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission." This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.

WarmWash 2mo ago
It's all fun and games until you are technologically stunted and entirely dependent on others for it.
- 3form 2mo ago
  What do you mean by "until"? I would argue that this situation is the _result_ of being stunted and dependent in the first place.
poisonborz 2mo ago
For billion dollar US megacorporations? Yes, it better be, finally (even though this is a slap on the wrist they will pay). Look at China's rules for internet companies there. Or how friendly the US was with TikTok.
- villish 2mo ago
  They are slaps on the wrists AND shake downs. The fines aren't to 'correct' bad behavior. Look at the EU delivery apps being found to participate in a cartel. They received a large fine but still allowed to keep what they gained and merged companies.
  - Roark66 2mo ago
    You know there is such a thing as law, "EU" can't just block a merger or take away their profits beyond a certain fee. The fee is the only enforcement mechanism in the law. If you decide it is worth for you as a company to pay the fee and continue to break the law there isn't much that can be done except change the law to increase the fee.
- 2mo ago

himata4113 2mo ago

Roblox should be outright banned in the EU or at least the top 100 games all qualify for what would be considered lootboxes/gambling and generally predatory behavior. Basically every single action you can do has a "robux" alternative which is faster/better + boosts cost robux. Then there's the worst of them all: trading card games. Another problem is that nothing carries over between games so as the algorithm shifts you're forced to spend robux all over again.

voxic11 2mo ago
I agree pay to win games suck, its the one feature which will make me instantly drop a game. But pay to win isn't gambling, afaik you can't earn robux by wagering robux you can only earn worthless in-game rewards.
- himata4113 2mo ago
  No, it's straight up gambling mechanics. Open any trading card game and tell me that it is not filled with mechanics that effectively resemble gambling.
- svelle 2mo ago
  How are loot boxes different from slot machines? The underlying psychological mechanics are very similar if not the same.
- zamadatix 2mo ago
  You don't have to win money for it to be gambling. If there are cosmetics someone wants but has to pay for only a chance to get them then it's gambling with the value they are betting on winning being the cosmetic they want to win.
- fl0id 2mo ago
  You don't need to "wager" robux for it to be gambling. You pay real money for robux (or whatever intermediate "currency") then spend robux to buy lootboxes (for example) which then by having very bad odds to get the thing you actually want, counts as gambling.

maxwwwt 2mo ago

Parents who let their kids play Roblox stun me. That is a cesspit of pedophiles, gambling, child exploitation, and bullying.

thebigspacefuck 2mo ago
Relevant Chris Hansen documentary https://youtu.be/84B-MPFaj5Y https://youtu.be/84B-MPFaj5Y
ravenstine 2mo ago
I'm not even sure I'd let my kids (if I had any :() play Roblox. People seem to just let their kids play it for hours without interacting with anyone, and when I do try and play it with kids of friends, etc., the games they play within it are pretty much all low effort trash. I get that creating and sharing games within it is sort of the point, but I don't think I've ever seen something with that much slop, and no one seems to have a problem with kids spending hours wallowing in slop. But yes, it's one big child exploitation platform.

rimworld 2mo ago

age verify everyone, then link this id to a digital wallet --easy