[jeffparsons]

Just look at Uber, for example. The opportunity cost of obeying the law in the various markets they entered would have far exceeded the cost of penalties they received in practice. So what did they do? They just flat out ignored the law globally, and it seems to have worked out pretty well for them.

Unless part of the calculus involves executives behind bars, I don't know what else we should expect from corporate behaviour; they're just following their incentives.

[Phemist]

I guess the Uber case is similar in ways but also quite different.

Uber was (relatively) vocal about their hope for regulation to catch up with this new world of taxi gigs ordered through an app.

And in the MS browser-choice case, the regulation was specifically designed for Microsoft and they had been found to be non-compliant once already.

How does that change the calculus? Clearly, not enough.

[Libcat99]

They were hopeful of regulations "catching up" because it hurts future competition. If new regs hit the books after uber has already enjoyed their growth, it's a lot harder for someone else to break in.

[mcv]

Consistent refusal to obey the law should result in fines of ownership of the company. Forced nationalisation. That's the only thing that will get their attention. They have too much money to care about fines.