Another problem is that nothing carries over between games so as the algorithm shifts you're forced to spend robux all over again.
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.
I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior.
What corrects bad behavior? The threat of serious consequences to a business.
Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.
frist_fine = 0.06 × anual_global_sales
fine(n) = first_fine * n^x
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%)This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.
Strictly speaking OpenAI is a loss making company so wouldn't pay anything (like Amazon, Snap and Pinterest)
https://dig.watch/updates/meta-challenges-supervisory-fee-es...
Soon they will have to firewall off most of the internet. After that comes VPNs.
At least the EU is unlikely to agree on voting anyone in as a leader for life.
But some people still appear to labour under the illusion that unchecked corporate greed will bring anything other than the end of human life on this planet.
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.
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!
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?
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.