> Google has not contested the facts and the fine was agreed as part of a settlement procedure, it added.
This means the fine was too cheap.
This means the fine was too cheap.
Often the meat of these agreements is the agreed behavior changes, not the fine. (It's very annoying that the articles often focus on the fines, rather than the rest of the agreement.)
Setting the fines at a level that doesn't cause endless appeals gets the behavior changes sooner, and may be more net efficient.
Would it be far-fetched for fines to be part of an annual/quarterly budget?
If its a fixed fine that is not adjusted in either direction for ability to pay, or which maxes out at a level which only is meaningful to the poor, sure.
If the fine is ““Your net worth minus the lesser of half your actual average annual income from legal sources for the last five years or double the federal poverty level for an individual”, it doesn’t “only apply to the poor”.
Of course, most criminal fines do only apply to the poor, but that’s not inherent to fines, but just what fines look like when the law is intended to punish the poor to start with.
Would be great is everyone did. But as the rich are so good at dodging taxes, already, I imagine it wouldn't be as effective as desired.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...