[piva00]

> Still fits the theme that EU is using GDPR to shake down big tech it does not own.

It's not a shake down, it's the fucking law which they don't follow and have to pay fines accordingly. Every single business in the EU has to follow these laws, if the US-based ones are not taking proper measures to not act illegally that's on them, not on the legislation, this shake down narrative is quite tired by now.

> Again just a rough feeling from the list but I would speculate that over 50 percent of fines in total were towards US or non-EU based companies.

Perhaps because the US companies are more eager in breaking laws and figuring it out later? Isn't that the whole take on EU vs US business approach, the US ones are big risk takers (including in acting illegally) vs EU ones being risk-averse?

I feel disheartened that this narrative is still spewed on HN, it's just vitriol, the US companies are breaking the law of EU members, if they do business here they need to follow the law, it's absurdly simple.

[rafaelmn]

This isn't something I really care to argue - OP was pretending like the fines were spread out equally in the EU and somehow the US complaints are baseless - when its obvious that the fines are heavily weighted towards US companies.

Whatever this is based on - OP was misrepresenting the data.

[piva00]

I don't think OP said anything about the spread of the fines amount being equal, they brought up that there are many EU-based companies whom have been levied fines, I believe you interpreted it wrongly and are bashing a non-existing argument.

US companies have been fined larger sums because their transgressions are more common, they do it repeatedly, and their global revenue is higher, there's no conspiracy here, it's exactly how the law is written.

I invite you to re-read their point:

> The vast majority of fines are towards european businesses.

Which is true, the majority of fines are towards EU-based businesses, not the majority of the amount in fines.

Again, if US-based companies with a much higher revenue and market penetration weren't breaking the laws they wouldn't be levied the higher fines.

[VikingTechGuy]

It's not fines, its damages for 1 visitor.

[burnerthrow008]

> It's not a shake down, it's the fucking law which they don't follow and have to pay fines accordingly. Every single business in the EU has to follow these laws,

That’s a lie, and you know it.

Spotify is not a “gatekeeper” according to the DMA. Why? Because there is a specific carve out for streaming businesses. German newspapers do not have to comply with the GDPR. Why? Again, because there is a specific carve out for newspapers.

These laws are specifically written so that they only apply to businesses that by an unbelievably amazing series of coincidences just happen to be those not based in the EU.

Also known as a shakedown.

[piva00]

Can you point me to the carve outs in the EU's directives? No, I'm not aware of those carve outs (and German newspapers display the GDPR notices for me all the time).

Edit: found the "carve out" for newspapers: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6087-2021-I...

And it applies to all newspapers so there's no distinction between being German or American.

If you believe it's a shakedown maybe you are looking at this with very nationalistic eyes, if US companies cannot abide by the law it's on them, most other companies do.

And Spotify doesn't have a carve out, if you read the DMA you'll understand why streaming is not considered a gatekeeper (since it's not a walled garden).