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 a day ago | parent | next [-]

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!

▲

buzer a day ago | parent [-]

Of one year. How many years does it take complete the investigation and let courts handle appeals? I assume they do not need to change behavior nor can the fine increase during the appeals.

	▲	benoau a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know, there's certainly mixed results so far for the DMA which has harsher penalties and none specifically for how this would play out with the DSA. We've seen Zuckerburg pivot from openly pledging to defy the EU [1] and then presenting compliant plans six months later to avoid the the periodic fine [2]. But we've also seen Apple in a bid to avoid the periodic fine imposing a ~20% commission [3] on third party payments after their 27% fee was ruled illegal and they were told it must be free [4]. The investigation into that has taken a year now despite being immediately perceived as noncompliant by many developers and ressembling what Google was recently fined €430 million for [5] and Apple seems to feel no pressure to change it. I guess what happens next to Apple will decide if companies fear this regulation, the periodic fine they were due if they didn't drop the 27% fee was touted to be up to $50m/day retroactively for the entire noncompliance period, which is now at least 400 days so lots of opportunity to send a message. [1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-offer-choices-personal... [3] https://daringfireball.net/2025/06/apple_app_store_policy_up... [4] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/23/eu-fines-...

▲

cbg0 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

Aurornis a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places.

Not an accurate analogy. This is a fine on sales, not expenditures. It would be like fining you 6% of your pre-tax income, not doubling sales tax on things you buy.

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

If the government threatened to take 6% of your pre-tax income if you violated a set of laws, would you laugh it off and refuse to change your behavior? Or would you make an effort to not incur those fines?

▲

skeptic_ai a day ago | parent [-]

Laugh it off. Especially when I can earn a ton more off doing it anyway. 6% is cost of doing business. I’ll earn 50% more by doing the sketchy shit.

	▲	Aurornis a day ago \| parent [-]
		These laws are not covering things that increase sales by 50% If that was true, sales would fall to 67% of the pre-law sales. That doesn’t happen. It’s a silly claim. It would be like the government taking 6% of your total compensation for breaking the speed limit. You could try to speed everywhere to save time but if you get caught it’s going to hurt. It’s not a “increase sales 50%” scenario. You’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist.

▲

ben_w a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.