This was a settlement, if the fines were massive, the settlement wouldn't have come as easily. And then if you start fining companies from other countries a lot, it becomes a trade issue and things get messy. In the worst case those companies just pull out of your market, and you are left with small businesses and startups but that might not make up for the services that the mega-corps were providing, and that might have adverse effects on other businesses in your country.

So what happens is that they wind up going with non-massive fines to enforce compliance as a trade off (like you wouldn't deal out the death penalty for someone who was caught stealing).

▲

ratelimitsteve 2 days ago | parent [-]

The problem is that we've taken "you wouldn't deal out the death penalty for someone who was caught stealing" and used it as justification to make the fines significantly less than the profits from breaking the law, thus incentivizing lawbreaking.

▲

seanmcdirmid 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't think you get it. Detroying a company doesn't make the situation better, most regulation is centered around "punish and correct," rather than "vindictive destruction." The company has to survive to learn its lesson, or you haven't really made any progress.

	▲	account42 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		We accept essentially destroying the lives of bad enough criminals in order to deter others, why should the same be out of the question for corporations.
	▲	ratelimitsteve 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		who said anything about destroying a company? I just said that the fine should be more than the profit from breaking the law or you're not punishing and correcting, you're encouraging lawbreaking and taking a cut of the profits.