I’d be happy with 1.1x, 1.2x revenue. They would loose our on development costs too. The only thing not recouped is any gain in brand recognition etc. Make them send a message to all of their customers, and take ads out informing the public how they broke the law, misled them etc.
I partially agree, but 100% of revenue is still a loss. The R&D, employee pay, rent for facilities, and cost of input resources are still negative. 100% of profit would only encourage it still, but 100% of revenue is potentially a pretty strong punishment.
Yep! Every tech CEO I’ve worked with has a mentality of “It’s just the cost of doing business.” Since if they get fined, it’s smaller than the profits they made. Or even better, many don’t get fined and it’s all profits!
As it stands - companies are punished for following the law.
It has to be more than every cent. That would still incentivize cheating since at worst it is a wash for them. Given they do not come close to getting 100% of offenders, the five needs to be multiples. It’s like fare enforcement on subways and light rail. If you skip paying, you’ll likely get away with it for a while. But overall, the five will cost you slightly more than if you would have just played by the rules.
The article also states the settlement will go to refunding the defrauded customers. This needs to be the standard when prosecuting public harm of a business.
Good for you America. Its usually the UE pursuing this kind of corporate bullshit, but i must admit is good to see a case where the fine equals the full amount of revenue scammed. It should be twice, or x10 times more if u ask, and even jail time for those responsible because that still feels too cheap for playing with people lives and fear, but its something.
Who would have tought we only needed a global pandemic and thousands of deaths to start getting (some) our shit together
Shoutout to Naomi Wu for going after them hard over this back during the height of the pandemic. Let’s not forget about her and the fact that she’s been muzzled by China.
110% seems like it could be a middle ground between actually nuking the company into the ground vs. impose to little of a fine.
They’re forced to give every cent back (hopefully that can find its way into actual customers hands instead of the government pissing it away) plus lose an additional 10% of whatever they made that is now a loss on the company financials. Shareholders wouldn’t like a loss on their spreadsheets and quickly fire whoever was in charge or sell. It’s bad for the business, the stock market, and the economy.
It would quickly train the stock market to deter that kind of behaviour. But we need politicians who are not bought by these companies to be able to pose these strong fines across the board.
10% loss on something on the scale of the likes of what someone like Apple or cough Tesla cough brings in on products would add up very, very quickly. More money back into people’s products going back into the economy in the form of more spending anyway, which is good, and more tax revenue that the government might one day learn how to spend efficiently and dilligantly, since the government would keep the 10% loss, I’m sure getting that 110% out of the company takes work, time, and spending anyway.
Capitalism only works with extremely tight regulation. And humans can corrupt that regulation very quickly.
I don’t disagree with your overall argument but, if they’re fined 100% of revenue, that’s way less than zero profit (because they’ve still paid to make, distribute, and recall the things).
Fines should, of course, always be more than the profit made. 3x is a good number.
"However, the proposed settlement against Razer includes a $100,000 civil penalty, plus $1,071,254.33, which the FTC said is equal to the amount of revenue Razer made from the Zephyr and will go toward refunding “defrauded consumers.”
Fucking. Yes. The money goes back to the customers. Hopefully, every last cent.
Yea this time 10% equals 100k which might as well be nothing in the scheme of things. It might hurt Razer but they can probably eat it since this mask wouldn’t have been a large part of their revenue compared to the 40 other products they make and sell a lot of. I still like to see this type of punishment being filled out and hope it is used against some of the larger flagrant frauds you mentioned
the proposed settlement against Razer includes a $100,000 civil penalty, plus $1,071,254.33, which the FTC said is equal to the amount of revenue Razer made from the Zephyr
It looks like they were originally going to have a mic, then dropped it. It apparently has ventillation fans, a battery…and looking at its box, apparently Bluetooth support, though damned if I know what they use Bluetooth support for on a facemask.
The Zephyr can be operated entirely by its built-in buttons, but it also supports Bluetooth connectivity to control its RGB lights via the Zephyr app for Android and iOS.
The actual fine is total revenue + 100k(roughly another 10%). That seems pitifully low for knowingly and intentionally lying about something people trust their lives to.
On one hand yes, knowingly endangering lives like that could be worth a heftier fine, on the other hand everything made plus ten percent seems like a pretty good fine to use if you want to actually discourage behavior across the board.
Exactly. Fines don’t work for corporations or the mega wealthy because they don’t have teeth. Pegging the fine to the actual income earned from the crime, and ensuring it’s no longer more profitable to just pay the fine and continue doing what you’re doing, is like, the only way to continue if we want to use fines as a deterrent.
Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You’re getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn’t quite mesh with your preferences. We’re clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.
You’re like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a “different” opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they’re saying, you’d realize you’re on the same fucking page.
Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I’m making. Actually, don’t bother, you’re not worth my time any longer.
Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
It is 83% effective, which is below par for what they’re offering. But it’s probably about as effective as the homemade cloth masks we were using at the beginning of the pandemic.
It more or less does the job. Which is less than you’d expect from a product you’re paying for, but still generally okay. This is probably fine for going to the grocery store. It’s not good enough if you’re working in a hospital.
I seem to remember a time when there were no masks of any kind to be had anywhere. A makerspace I was involved in had a few sewing machines, and a few of those who could sew were making masks out of cloth they had lying around for personal use or sale. They were suddenly in demand.
I bought masks from a toy company (Playmobil) for my family, because there was literally nothing else available anywhere. They were marketed as alternatives to basic paper masks though, not N95 masks:
The innovation was that you could use tissue paper as filters and reuse the silicone mask after cleaning it. They were uncomfortable and stinky, but functional. We used these for about a month or two, long before any vaccines were available. I suspect that social distancing protected us far more than the masks, but either way, none of us got infected.
I honestly didn't know they even nade them. I saw them at some point and thought when this shit keeps going, i might aswell become a cybergoth with a darth vader voice. But i assumed the hype died when mask mandates losend up
They make mice, keyboards, laptops, components, cell phones, clothing, peripherals like mousepads and deskmats, and some more. Quality is a bit all over the place and used to be good 15 years ago but they went cheap on parts at some point
I had the opportunity to use their mice 20 years ago. I came to the conclusion they filled the same niche as monster cables, if you were convinced to buy them, that was on you.
Add comment