Comment by ryukoposting
7 days ago
1.2B is less than 1% of Meta's revenue in FY2024. Maximum fines for infractions like these should exist on a sliding scale, as some percentage of prior revenue.
7 days ago
1.2B is less than 1% of Meta's revenue in FY2024. Maximum fines for infractions like these should exist on a sliding scale, as some percentage of prior revenue.
The point was it’s two orders of magnitude more than the original comment stated. Also 1% of yearly revenue is not insignificant.
How is it not? Will anyone actually feel this fine?
YoY percentages are usually presented with one decimal place of precision. This makes the number drop by one whole percentage point. It impacts net profit margin and profit numbers even more. Literally everyone up to the C level executives, board of directors and shareholders will notice and care about this. The missing money could have been invested into making more money in the future or payed out as dividends. Instead it’s gone.
This also means all employees feel this because it affects the prospects of their raises, management pressure and in the end whether they get to keep their job or not. (I’m not saying the recent layoffs were caused by this but it sure as hell didn’t help.)
Every single penny matters to a capitalist corporation and this was not pennies.
Probably best indexed to profit rather than revenue. 10% of revenue would be a one quarter’s profit for meta, but more than a year’s profit for Amazon and about 9 years of profit for Otto. Higher margins / profits should mean higher fines.
The laws specify revenue, to avoid transfer pricing removing all fineable profits. Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess.
This isn’t live/die/sword. This is “low margin companies held to a higher standard than high margins companies”. It hurts Otto a lot more to lose 9 years of profit than it hurts Amazon to lose one quarter.
1 reply →
Profit doesn't include employee and especially executive compensation, i.e. what the perpetrators were paid.
Sure. But it’s what shareholders care about. Who are you trying to punish financially if not the shareholders?
Something that you can sensibly express as a fraction of the revenue of Meta is significant though.
It must be low enough that Meta never seriously considers to pull out of Europe.
> It must be low enough that Meta never seriously considers to pull out of Europe.
Why? Threathening is one thing, actually leaving one of the largest markets is something different. Also, not much of value would be lost.
> Something that you can sensibly express as a fraction of the revenue of Meta is significant though.
Also, if the percentage is low, it just becomes the "cost of doing business" and not a fine that would actually make them rethink and not do stuff like that again.
Why do you think Zuck became a wannabe fascho out of nowhere? DMA and GDPR fines will hurt Meta a lot when they are due. Zuck is trying to leverage Trump and the war to nullify the fines.
[dead]
They actually do; max GDPR penalty is 4% global revenue, say.
Of course the concern would be that even at that rate some companies might see it as a cost of doing business.
I'd be inclined to go with something closer to 40%, or 400%.