• tekato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Yes. Like every system, there are those who abuse it. But you must be careful so that while trying to punish those abusers, you don’t end up creating avenues to also punish those who don’t abuse the system, but simply make a mistake. This sets a precedent so that the government can target the assets of the owner of the company if they’re not satisfied the company punishment, which doesn’t sound as cool when the company in question is your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      <…> your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.

      Are not subject to DSA. For the most part DSA only covers companies which have more than 45 million users in the European Union.

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Whether it’s subject to DSA or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a company has to pay a fine to the government, whatever the infraction might be, and the government is trying to force something else, not the company in question, to pay the fine.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought. But ignoring that, there are clear limits. This would only apply to cases where corporate assets were used as personal ones. Hence, the limitation to private companies that have sole owners.

          And you talk like this is some novel never heard of approach. Personal liability applies to many actions under the law, just corporations managed to lobby it down for themselves. And your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.

            Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.

            Personal liability applies to many actions under the law

            Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.

            your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

            What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?

            • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place. Follow the law, and you are good in the EU, no matter which size business you are.

              If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?

              Here you go again. If they decide to go through with it, no Musk rights will be violated, there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this.

              • tekato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place.

                Didn’t bother responding to it because it’s irrelevant. Elon Musk is not being accused of misusing corporate assets, he is being accused of not complying with the DSA.

                there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this

                Of course, extensive means many. Point to at least 2 cases in which other assets of a company’s owner were threatened by the EU government due to DSA violations. I know there are none, so I’ll make it easier. Name 2 cases for which the EU went after the owner’s other assets because the fine to the company wasn’t enough, whatever the fine might originate from.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I don’t know if this will be a big issue for small businesses. But in any case where there is construction of multiple companies in a structure to separate profits and losses for fuckery with taxes and fines, I think I would also be OK with that whole structure being seen as one entity and treated as such.

      The billionaire class however is uniquely adept at this kind of fuckery and wield an ungodly level of power, only surpassed by governments. And I think governments need to be careful that these assholes don’t get too much power… so it’s high time they take them down a peg… or 10.

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        It will be an issue because your average citizen won’t be so willing to start a new business if they know the government can come after their personal funds as a consequence of something that was done at the company level.

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 hours ago

            You are going for the assets of the owner, which are unrelated to the company in question. Effectively devaluating companies that are not the infringing one, which directly affect the person’s net worth. This is no different than the government straight up taking money from your investments or 401K.