Earlier quoted context omitted.
> somehow deducted from subsidies Do you think the EU subsidizes Meta/Apple.
[flagged]
No. The EU subsidizes electric vehicles. Not the same thing.
Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
151–160 of 635 posts
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not hold my breath. They are adept at malicious compliance. Cook will do a cost/benefit assessment and will come up with another workaround.
> They are adept at malicious compliance. They just got fined 500 millions for failure to comply so I'm not sure adept is the adjective I would use.
500 million is like half a days revenue.
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not hold my breath. They are adept at malicious compliance. Cook will do a cost/benefit assessment and will come up with another workaround.
> They are adept at malicious compliance. They just got fined 500 millions for failure to comply so I'm not sure adept is the adjective I would use.
Whether it's adept or not depends on what would have happened if they actually complied.
Sure, a half a billion fine sounds like a lot, but if you don't have another number to compare against, you can't tell if it was clever or not.
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#154> The EU fines could stoke tensions with U.S President Donald Trump who has threatened to levy tariffs against countries that penalise U.S. companies. Mark Zuckerberg, in his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, specifically noted this as his goal for falling in behind Trump. That Trump would be the big-stick man that would protect Meta and other cos from foreign interference. Where "interference" is anything restricti…
> Of course Meta could just withdrawn from the EU.
I mean, probably not without being sued by their shareholders. As a public company, you cannot simply abandon 40bn revenue/year because you feel aggrieved.
But yeah, the "you'd better be nice to us, EC, or Trump might be angry" tactic is kinda shot at this point.
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#155[deleted]
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#156> Apple faces a €500 million fine for breaching the regulation’s rules for app stores, while Meta drew a penalty of €200 million for its "pay or consent" advertising model, > The procedural fines fall short of the two giant penalties issued by the EU executive under its antitrust laws last year: €1.8 billion to Apple for abusing its dominant position while distributing music streaming apps, and €797 million to Meta f…
> Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers. This quote is re: anti-trust, but likely generalizes. https://competition-policy.e…
[flagged]
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#157[flagged]
> gerrymandered
This word doesn't simply mean 'I don't like this', you know.
Facebook is under no obligation to operate in Europe. Of course, they make about 40 billion revenue in Europe annually, so they will be inclined to want to stay in Europe. And they can do this! They just have to follow the rules.
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is: 1. Not about any monopoly (in fact the word "monopoly" does not appear in the press release at all). 2. Nothing like McDonalds, whose business model is completely different from an app store's. 3. Not about Apple can do to consumers who aren't in the Apple ecosystem but about what it can do to developers who wish to sell their applications and services for Apple devices. If you really insist on making an ana…
> If you really insist on making an analogy that involves McDonalds: that's like arguing that McDonalds should not be allowed to prevent Coca-Cola from telling Coca-Cola customers that they can buy Coca-Cola in places other than McDonalds. Which, yeah, they're not allowed to. Neither the App Stores or McDonalds have any control over what you do outside of them. That's your problem, individually and collectively.
Except Apple tried to exert control over that, which is exactly what they got fined for, because it's illegal.
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this has nothing to do with some monopoly on the smartphone market, but with Apple not allowing application developers to enable their users to vote with their wallets on payment methods. From the press release: > Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers…
This is like arguing McDonalds has a monopoly over food sold in McDonalds outlets, when you have a choice to not go into McDonalds.
The whole point of the DMA is clarifying that from the point of view of the European Union, operating a digital market on a platform is not actually like going to a McDonalds.
There is no argument to be made by analogy here. The DMA always was clear regarding what constitutes a digital market and what the obligations of the companies operating them would be. If Apple is unhappy about that, they are free to stop operating the App Store in the EU.
Re: Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law
#160> The EU fines could stoke tensions with U.S President Donald Trump who has threatened to levy tariffs against countries that penalise U.S. companies. Mark Zuckerberg, in his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, specifically noted this as his goal for falling in behind Trump. That Trump would be the big-stick man that would protect Meta and other cos from foreign interference. Where "interference" is anything restricti…
Someone here hazarded the hypothesis that Trump's tariffs are a stick aimed not towards other countries, but towards American corporations, who have to pledge fealty (and resources) to Trump in exchange for relief. I think it makes a lot of sense, if any of this is rational, which I'm not entirely sold on.
Look at 47's truth social some time. In between the posts 'destroying' liberals and lionising the worst actors in his party, he posts up a disturbing amount of 'settlements' with Law Firms that previously displeased him.
They were basically forced at gunpoint to make deals to provide pro bono services to the Trump administration, in return for regulators dropping investigations into their diversity practices.
The firms - including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft – are among the most prestigious and recognized firms in the US.
Cadwalader is the former firm of Todd Blanche, who resigned his partnership there to represent Trump in criminal cases when the firm would not take on Trump as a client. Blanche is now the deputy attorney general – the number two official at the Department of Justice.
Overall the MAGA cabinet has now secured more than $900m in pro bono pledges from law firms threatened with either executive orders or investigations from the equal opportunity commission. How this isn't seen as a straight up RICO case or old-fashioned criminal shakedown is beyond me.