Title Required
RSS Channel: Comments on: EU opens non-compliance investigations against Alphabet, Apple and Meta under the Digital Markets Act
Exploring the Future of Computing
Generator:https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5
Docs:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138956/eu-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-the-digital-markets-act/#comment-10437540">Alfman</a>. To be clear, I'm eager for all our governments to finally put the breaks on abusive monopoly practices by tech companies...this is long overdue.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138956/eu-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-the-digital-markets-act/#comment-10437538">Carewolf</a>. Carewolf, <blockquote>The problem is that it is too easy to hide turnover in different countries. If we could start by closing all the budget loopholes normally tolerated, that could work. But until we have fixed that worldwide, we instead use the figure that is the hardest to tamper with: global turnover.</blockquote> A court can always argue it's easier to ignore their jurisdictions, but what a slippery slope that is. One that's ripe for abuse. Even if regulators conduct themselves in good faith I'd suggest there's still moral problem here. After all, imposing laws on external countries without even a semblance of democratic representation is authoritarian by definition. While this may not be the EU's intention, it definitely leaves a bad taste. I would be more supportive of regulators cooperating together across international jurisdictions such that it complies all appropriate laws. Many treaties work like this and for that matter an international treaty covering antitrust cases could indeed have merit. In the absence of this though it still seems wrong for the EU to attempt to regulate and penalize commerce in countries outside the EU's actual jurisdiction. I cannot support that.

By: Carewolf
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138956/eu-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-the-digital-markets-act/#comment-10437509">Alfman</a>. The problem is that it is too easy to hide turnover in different countries. If we could start by closing all the budget loopholes normally tolerated, that could work. But until we have fixed that worldwide, we instead use the figure that is the hardest to tamper with: global turnover.

By: j0scher
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138956/eu-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-the-digital-markets-act/#comment-10437509">Alfman</a>. That's a fair point. It should be something like 50% of EU turnover instead.

By: Alfman
<blockquote>The European Commission intends to complete its investigations within a year, and if found in violation of the law, companies can be fined for up to <b>10% of their worldwide turnover,</b> which can grow up to 20% for repeated infringements.</blockquote> I appreciate that EU are trying to make these companies play fair and to start to make competition viable. But whenever I see EU terms such as these it really rubs me the wrong way because IMHO they're violating their jurisdiction. After all the EU would not want other countries issuing fines on activities inside the EU. Say China tried to pull something like this, we'd all be crying foul and with very good reason.. So even though I side with EU's push to regulate antitrust abuses, I do not support them overstepping their jurisdiction...it sets an awful precedent that far worse governments might be tempted to copy.