They don't even say how to opt-out.
I think it doesn't really matter in what form the government appears. It's still the government and so its rules apply.
If it's a "limited company", that means it's liability is limited to shareholder capital. It's going to have to have an awful lot of capital if it's going to be able to compensate the entire population for mishandling their data.
Also, if it's a limited company, then the shareholders can sell their shares; the company can change hands, often to owners in a different jurisdiction.
A limited company is not an arm of the government, and I can't hold a limited company accountable in the same way I can the government; especially if my personal data has left the jurisdiction.
Translation using Deepl:
Leasts on the Judgment of the First Senate of February 22, 2011 - 1 BvR 699/06 - Mixed-economy enterprises controlled by the public sector in private-law form are subject to a direct fundamental-rights obligation in the same way as wholly state-owned public enterprises organized in private-law forms.
This is apparently the German equivalent to an LLC.
Pretty sure you misunderstood what "limited liability" means. Pretty much all organizations today have the same legal status: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
Thats exactly the issue
GP is arguing that the entity in charge of all your medical information should not be an LLC. LLCs in general are great.
This company probably shouldn't be LLC.
Are people confused that limited liability limits the liability of the company? Because limited liability means that the liability of the owners is limited to their investment. The company can go bankrupt from losing lawsuit.
Otherwise you end up with people who can create as many harmful businesses as they want and just walk away when it explodes, ignoring everyone caught in the shrapnel. I'm 1000x more concerned about the effects of harmful companies than whatever friction it creates for starting new companies. Everything already moves too fast, it would be far preferable to have fewer corporations if it meant they were of higher ethical behavior.
No, that's what insurance is for.
Companies operated before the concept of Limited liability was even invented.
We have records of successfull companies from year 578, like Kongō Gumi, in Japan.
Also, LLC in US is kind of company. It is mostly used for small sole proprietorships and partnerships. Technically, public companies are “limited by shares” where shareholders are liable up to value of their shares. But there is no difference in terms of protecting owners from liability so they are called limited liability.
Limited Liability is a double-edged sword. It does reduce the risk of starting a company. But it reduces some mechanisms to protect society from misbehaving companies.