ChatGPT, Roblox to Fall Under Strictest EU Rules for Platforms

cch_sm about 2 hours ago 16 commentsRead Article on bloomberg.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

43% Positive

Analyzed from 583 words in the discussion.

Discussion (16 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

himata4113•24 minutes ago

Roblox should be outright banned in the EU or at least the top 100 games all qualify for what would be considered lootboxes/gambling and generally predatory behavior. Basically every single action you can do has a "robux" alternative which is faster/better + boosts cost robux. Then there's the worst of them all: trading card games.

Another problem is that nothing carries over between games so as the algorithm shifts you're forced to spend robux all over again.

Doohickey-d•about 1 hour ago

https://archive.is/58cyT

LoganDark•about 1 hour ago

> Companies that breach the DSA risk fines of as much as 6% of their annual global sales.

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.

cbg0•about 1 hour ago

The point of fines is to correct bad behavior, not to bankrupt businesses which create jobs.

karmelapple•40 minutes ago

6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places.

I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior.

What corrects bad behavior? The threat of serious consequences to a business.

benoau•28 minutes ago

For Roblox their 6% of global turnover ($5b) is $300m which while it seems trivial, is 30% of their profit ($1b).

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!

cbg0•13 minutes ago

That 6% could be more than your profit margin, depending on what business you operate. There's nothing saying that fines can't keep coming if your behavior isn't corrected, it's not just one fine then they leave you alone.

ben_w•27 minutes ago

> 6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places.

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.

throwatdem12311•33 minutes ago

6% of sales is just “cost of doing business”.

Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.

luke5441•25 minutes ago

Note that this is of "sales" not of profit. So for OpenAI this would be 1.5$ billion. ( based on recent PR spin sales number)

atoav•40 minutes ago

I am for more maths in laws like these:

  frist_fine = 0.06 × anual_global_sales
  
  fine(n) = first_fine * n^x

And the exponent x is to be chosen by how harsh you want to be. Repeat offenders will quickly run out of money as long as your exponent is reasonably bigger than 1.

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%)

datakan•about 1 hour ago

"must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission."

This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.

helsinkiandrew•33 minutes ago

It's a maximum of 0.05% of the companies world wide income - scaled by their monthly users in the EU.

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...

poisonborz•about 1 hour ago

For billion dollar US megacorporations? Yes, it better be, finally (even though this is a slap on the wrist they will pay). Look at China's rules for internet companies there. Or how friendly the US was with TikTok.

villish•44 minutes ago

They are slaps on the wrists AND shake downs. The fines aren't to 'correct' bad behavior. Look at the EU delivery apps being found to participate in a cartel. They received a large fine but still allowed to keep what they gained and merged companies.

atoav•35 minutes ago

With great power comes great responsibility. Beyond a certain size of corporation that may just be the only way to retain a scintilla of accountability.

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.