ChatGPT, Roblox to Fall Under Strictest EU Rules for Platforms
bloomberg.com43 points by ch_sm 3 hours ago
43 points by ch_sm 3 hours ago
Roblox should be outright banned in the EU or at least the top 100 games all qualify for what would be considered lootboxes/gambling and generally predatory behavior. Basically every single action you can do has a "robux" alternative which is faster/better + boosts cost robux. Then there's the worst of them all: trading card games.
Another problem is that nothing carries over between games so as the algorithm shifts you're forced to spend robux all over again.
I agree pay to win games suck, its the one feature which will make me instantly drop a game. But pay to win isn't gambling, afaik you can't earn robux by wagering robux you can only earn worthless in-game rewards.
You don't have to win money for it to be gambling. If there are cosmetics someone wants but has to pay for only a chance to get them then it's gambling and the value they are betting on winning is the cosmetic they want to win.
How are loot boxes different from slot machines? The underlying psychological mechanics are very similar if not the same.
No, it's straight up gambling mechanics. Open any trading card game and tell me that it is not filled with mechanics that effectively resemble gambling.
[dead]
> Companies that breach the DSA risk fines of as much as 6% of their annual global sales.
It's nuts that this is all they can manage. Like, take 30% or 40% -- that might actually encourage compliance.
I think they'll comply, but almost entirely not because of small fines.
The point of fines is to correct bad behavior, not to bankrupt businesses which create jobs.
6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places.
I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior.
What corrects bad behavior? The threat of serious consequences to a business.
For Roblox their 6% of global turnover ($5b) is $300m which while it seems trivial, is 30% of their profit ($1b).
For a company like Google this fine would be in the vicinity of $24 billion, which would be a bit over 20% of their annual profit.
So for companies that have to answer to shareholders this is already a pretty big deterrent, but just in case if they reject compliance it becomes a periodic penalty!
That 6% could be more than your profit margin, depending on what business you operate. There's nothing saying that fines can't keep coming if your behavior isn't corrected, it's not just one fine then they leave you alone.
> it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places.
Not an accurate analogy. This is a fine on sales, not expenditures. It would be like fining you 6% of your pre-tax income, not doubling sales tax on things you buy.
> I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior.
If the government threatened to take 6% of your pre-tax income if you violated a set of laws, would you laugh it off and refuse to change your behavior? Or would you make an effort to not incur those fines?
Laugh it off. Especially when I can earn a ton more off doing it anyway. 6% is cost of doing business. I’ll earn 50% more by doing the sketchy shit.
> 6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places.
6% of annual, global sales, as an extra cost from one jurisdiction, which can impose this multiple times if there are multiple breaches, and where they're not the only jurisdiction with such rules, and the DSA isn't the only ruleset where fines are based on global revenue even in the EU (famously, GDPR).
Or, to put it another way: 16 such fines in one year and you've lost 100% of your revenue. You don't get to make up for this by raising prices, because that just means "100% of your revenue" is now a bigger number.
6% of sales is just “cost of doing business”.
Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.
A fine doesn't give immunity for the future. You pay the fine for the past behaviour, then you start paying fines of up to 5% of daily global revenue for every day you keep being non-compliant. That's the start. The end is not doing business.
Note that this is of "sales" not of profit. So for OpenAI this would be 1.5$ billion. ( based on recent PR spin sales number)
I am for more maths in laws like these:
frist_fine = 0.06 × anual_global_sales
fine(n) = first_fine * n^x
If we take an exponent of 2 a repeat offense by OpenAI would look like this:
1st offence: EUR 1.50 billion (6%)
2nd offence: EUR 6.00 billion (24%)
3rd offence: EUR 13.50 billion (54%)
4th offence: EUR 24.00 billion (96%)
5th offence: EUR 37.50 billion (150%)
6th offence: EUR 54.00 billion (216%)If you tell them their expenses beforehand, they'll budget them in, though.
"must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission."
This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.
It's a maximum of 0.05% of the companies world wide income - scaled by their monthly users in the EU.
Strictly speaking OpenAI is a loss making company so wouldn't pay anything (like Amazon, Snap and Pinterest)
https://dig.watch/updates/meta-challenges-supervisory-fee-es...
It doesn't matter if you're losing money on paper, since the fee is on sales, not profit.
For billion dollar US megacorporations? Yes, it better be, finally (even though this is a slap on the wrist they will pay). Look at China's rules for internet companies there. Or how friendly the US was with TikTok.
They are slaps on the wrists AND shake downs. The fines aren't to 'correct' bad behavior. Look at the EU delivery apps being found to participate in a cartel. They received a large fine but still allowed to keep what they gained and merged companies.
You know there is such a thing as law, "EU" can't just block a merger or take away their profits beyond a certain fee.
The fee is the only enforcement mechanism in the law. If you decide it is worth for you as a company to pay the fee and continue to break the law there isn't much that can be done except change the law to increase the fee.
It mostly just seems like the EU is becoming China.
Soon they will have to firewall off most of the internet. After that comes VPNs.
At least the EU is unlikely to agree on voting anyone in as a leader for life.
It's all fun and games until you are technologically stunted and entirely dependent on others for it.
With great power comes great responsibility. Beyond a certain size of corporation that may just be the only way to retain a scintilla of accountability.
But some people still appear to labour under the illusion that unchecked corporate greed will bring anything other than the end of human life on this planet.