• tekato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Whether it’s subject to DSA or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a company has to pay a fine to the government, whatever the infraction might be, and the government is trying to force something else, not the company in question, to pay the fine.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought. But ignoring that, there are clear limits. This would only apply to cases where corporate assets were used as personal ones. Hence, the limitation to private companies that have sole owners.

      And you talk like this is some novel never heard of approach. Personal liability applies to many actions under the law, just corporations managed to lobby it down for themselves. And your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.

        Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.

        Personal liability applies to many actions under the law

        Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.

        your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

        What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?