• Kalkaline @leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    No, it should be 3x revenue, IMO it’s not enough to just get that money back, it should cause some hurt on top of it.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yep! Every tech CEO I’ve worked with has a mentality of “It’s just the cost of doing business.” Since if they get fined, it’s smaller than the profits they made. Or even better, many don’t get fined and it’s all profits!

      As it stands - companies are punished for following the law.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Interesting too how that “cost of doing business” is basically money they don’t receive as opposed to money they actually have to pay

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      I partially agree, but 100% of revenue is still a loss. The R&D, employee pay, rent for facilities, and cost of input resources are still negative. 100% of profit would only encourage it still, but 100% of revenue is potentially a pretty strong punishment.

    • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’d be happy with 1.1x, 1.2x revenue. They would loose our on development costs too. The only thing not recouped is any gain in brand recognition etc. Make them send a message to all of their customers, and take ads out informing the public how they broke the law, misled them etc.

    • Corkyskog
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because we all know they are only catching the tip of the iceberg anyway