Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is an incomplete understanding of the stakeholders in these rulings.

1. The goal of the fines is to act as a deterrent and to encourage companies to get back into compliance.

2. The arbiters aren't operating in a vacuum. Bankrupting services that the citizens of a country rely on is unpopular and not in service of goal #1.

3. We know that this is the case because Uber and other ride sharing services were able to violate the law and convince voters to have the law changed to permit these services.

4. Fines impacting net revenue are dealt with seriously by companies when they are adequately large, e.g. 10% of net revenue. Compliance departments are not funded as a job creation or charity exercise. When companies report earnings, these fines frequently determine whether earnings guidance is achieved. This impacts company officers' compensation.

tl;dr, you passionately believe in these views, but it is not one held by the majority. Your minority view should not be the basis of public policy.



So a company should be free to break as many laws as it wants and never have any risk to its owners?


> Fines impacting net revenue are dealt with seriously by companies when they are adequately large, e.g. 10% of net revenue.

That's financial risk.

For criminal risk, a change to existing laws would have to be made; they currently carry only civil penalties to the organizations involved. I think that those laws would be popular. They would have to be carefully crafted to narrowly target behavior without unacceptably impairing capital investment and business formation. That would negatively impact the quality of life of the countries' residents.


cough Airbnb, Uber cough. /s




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: