[37]

>The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based

What? Says who? It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. FTA: The ACCC and Google jointly submitted to the Court that a penalty of $60 million against Google LLC was appropriate, and that no separate penalty against Google Australia Pty Ltd was necessary, in circumstances where the Australian company was not responsible for the preparation of the screens which the Court found were misleading.

[boomboomsubban]

>It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon.

Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based.

[37]

>Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based.

It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making.

By the same logic, both groups are fully aware that Google starts with the letter G, therefore the size of the fine is based on the fact that Google starts with the letter G.

I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true.

[boomboomsubban]

>It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making.

Google's revenue is public knowledge, surely the ACCC is capable of using a search engine to find it.

>but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true.

I can't prove it, or perhaps I could if the ACCC has fined others for the same offense, but even without proof I'm not making an extraordinary claim. If a local delivery place had two separate toggles needed to stop them from tracking your order history, they'd be guilty of the same thing yet people would find a $60M fine ridiculous.