• 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Which if my math is correct, at an average US household income of $75k that is equivalent to a whopping $30.

    As always, when the fine is less than the extra profits earned by breaking the law that’s just the cost of doing business. Until these fines are like 10x+ the extra profits earned this is going to be the normal.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’ve always advocated for fines to be assessed as a percentage of global annual revenue.

      “Oh, your global revenue was $100B? That will be $1b please.”

      • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        EU takes 10% of the profits if rules like GDPR and other Digital acts are breached.

        But only at the first offence. The second time they take 20%.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          its €10M or 2% turnover whichever is higher, doubling for more sever infringements. Fining based on turnover is the way to go as it eliminates wriggling out of fines and makes them hurt.

      • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’d say that the board members also have to have some personal liability (criminal of course, but also limited financial liability and a temporary or permanent ban on serving on any board or executive (legally responsible) position, depending on circumstances. Incentives must be aligned, and not something that they can justify as a cost of doing business.