I'd want to see a fine of 20% of revenue if around 5% to 10% of its revenues came from illegal activities. If that's the case, maybe the company should be killed. The fine must be a multiple of the gains or there's no benefit to following the law.
> big or small
That's exactly the point. Flat fines (not saying $1.3B is a flat fine, in this case) only kill small companies and act as a small "break the law fee" for big companies.
> And we are talking revenue, not profit.
Right, you cannot fine based on profit, because profit is a gameable number (Hollywood Accounting).
I'm not actually saying $1.3B is the wrong number: it's possible that's 3x to 5x of the revenue they gained from brazenly and wantonly breaking the laws of the country in which they operated. I haven't done enough research to say. What I was responding to was this:
> I do not think there is any amount of money that could be fined that HN commentators would not call a slap on the wrist.
Most fines for most offenses against most companies are slaps on the wrist, because they are less than the gain. This is why.
> I can’t tell if you’re trolling
This is a bad-faith attempt to dismiss an argument without considering it.
If a company breaks the law, it gets to continue to break it by paying some money. And claim that doing wonderful technological development and innovating shit.
I mean, if I have the option to get a get-out-of-jail card for 20% of my income I'd probably take it.
A fine of even 20% of revenue would basically kill any company, big or small.
And we are talking revenue, not profit.