Post #2419806

2024-03-08 10:38 UTC

@neatchee@urusai.social @zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Does that mean an American company is legally supposed to violate other countries' laws when they know it would lead to more profit? This seems doubtful. In this case, let is suppose, for the sake of argument, that not complying with the DSA would lead to more profit than complying (which is probably really not the case, considering the fines at stake). Do you mean that, in such a case, the US law requires that they violate the DSA? If so, this is frightening, when applied to oil companies operating in third world countries for instance.

Replies (2)

@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net 2024-03-08 12:03

@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @neatchee@urusai.social @rustyshelf@mastodon.social I'm not a legal expert but looking at how the companies work around the world I suppose it doesn't work like that. Otherwise all corporations would use slave labor or harmful chemicals or don't give a shit about GDPR or could kill people for the sake of profit. It doesn't mean that all those things don't happen but it's against that law and you will be brought in court if cought. Just an example: for manufacturing of clothes, in third world countries you have usually three factories. The best ones are for EU products because of laws about chemicals, the seconds are for US market where there are little laws about that. And the worst factories are for the domestic market. That's also why similar products cost less on AliExpress, Temu, etc. than on Amazon (other factors applies of course).

Open ##2419807
@neatchee@urusai.social 2024-03-08 15:20

@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Yes, if you could find evidence that there was research conducted that showed exactly what you're saying - that they would only receive a fine, and the fine would be less than the profit, and there would be no brand image damage, and it wouldn't effect their sales, etc etc - then they would have a duty to do so. It IS super fucked up. The language of the law is so broad that it creates fucked up situations like that. If you can show that when all is said and done, doing X would be in the best interests of the shareholders, that's what they have to do It's insane. But that's how it is

Open ##2419808