517
FTC fines Razer for every cent made selling bogus “N95 grade” RGB masks | Ars Technica
(arstechnica.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
517 points (98.9% liked)
News
22612 readers
3657 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The actual fine is total revenue + 100k(roughly another 10%). That seems pitifully low for knowingly and intentionally lying about something people trust their lives to.
On one hand yes, knowingly endangering lives like that could be worth a heftier fine, on the other hand everything made plus ten percent seems like a pretty good fine to use if you want to actually discourage behavior across the board.
Exactly. Fines don't work for corporations or the mega wealthy because they don't have teeth. Pegging the fine to the actual income earned from the crime, and ensuring it's no longer more profitable to just pay the fine and continue doing what you're doing, is like, the only way to continue if we want to use fines as a deterrent.
Pegging the fine against the personal assets of the executives/board responsible for the crime would be more effective.
Fining a corporation just hurts the the employees.
I mean, that's fair. We can talk specifics, just something to make sure the fine has teeth. How we decide to do that is another topic.
Yeah, this should be the standard. No fixed penalty amounts, no negotiated settlements. Revenue +10% would be a great standard.
10% is not a fine, it is a sales tax.
Reminder that it's all revenue PLUS 10%. So it effectively makes whatever bullshit money making scheme they want to use, cost money instead.
Good to know you dont mind the profiteering off fraud.
Fine is a penalty, not a cost of business, not a sales tax. A penalty.
100k fine on 1 mill refund is nothing. 1 mill fine on 1 mill refund is a fine.
My guy. Reading comprehension. I did not say 10%. I said 10% ON TOP OF ANY EARNINGS.
As in, if a corp earns 1 million, the fine levied would be 1.1 million.
Christ, go back to 2nd grade.
Stop conflating refund as earnings and a fine. Its not. They didn’t earn shit, they committed fraud and stole money. Forced refunds are not fines
Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You're getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn't quite mesh with your preferences. We're clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.
You're like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a "different" opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they're saying, you'd realize you're on the same fucking page.
You’re perpetuating it as a win. Its not. Its not close to bare minimum. The cost of this should have been:
Cool story bro
Don't put words in my mouth. You're the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I'm making. Actually, don't bother, you're not worth my time any longer.
Still no coherent point.
It's 110%, not 10%.
Its a 100% refund with a 10% fine. Dont conflate the refunded fraudulent sales with the fine.
Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That's the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you'll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you'll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that's REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It's the same in the end.
Don’t conflate refunds from fine. Its not an earnings, its a refund.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the "refund" is not enough? I think that's got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over "refund" versus "fine" and "earnings" versus "acquisitions" or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
And here in lies the problem.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you're attacking me as if I'm thinking it's all well and good they're doing this shit. It's not. We're on the same page philosophically, you just really don't like the specific terminology I'm using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
How delicate do you have to be to believe disagreement as an attack . Comical gold.