[NickC25]

And that's just disturbing to me - that a corporation can willingly and knowingly break the law, and the money they'll make from doing so is significantly larger than the fine they'll pay.

Why is that even remotely acceptable in a democratic society?

[ars]

You get your entire argument is imaginary right?

Amazon isn't actually doing this, and it isn't actually acceptable.

HIPPA fines are public, if they did this even once everyone would know.

[NickC25]

Imaginary? Not acceptable?

See the big banks collective responses to regulations placed on the financial industry in the aftermath of 2008 - if the fine is significantly smaller than the potential for profits, they will do those activities and pay the fine 100% of the time. This mentality is evident in many other sectors as well, especially with publicly traded companies.

Yes, I know HIPPA fines are public. However, Amazon has enough money to not care, and to never care. You know how many labor laws Amazon has blatantly violated and not cared? If they can capture an entirely new vertical (healthcare), their share price will increase despite looming lawsuits and pesky regulations. Amazon is a multi-trillion dollar company that focuses on growth at any and all costs.

[ars]

Yes, imaginary.

You wrote a whole paragraph about something that never actually happened, and that shows no sign of happening.

And you wrote it as if it actually happened. It's quite astonishing to read.

[JohnFen]

It shouldn't be, but that's how the game has been played for longer than you or I have been alive.

The fact that the penalty for many serious violations consists of fines that represent a tiny fraction of the company's worth means that breaking the law is an easy economic decision for companies. Fines are just a cost of doing business, and not even a major one.