EU considers calculating X fines by including revenue from Musk’s other firms
EU considers calculating X fines by including revenue from Musk’s other firms
Musk could face DSA fines of up to 6% of global revenue—including SpaceX sales.
That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.
Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.
So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.
It's also why I am skeptical that they'll do it, or at least I'm skeptical they'll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.
13I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock
13fine the fucker for 20% of his net "worth", that should give him some pause
43Not really billions is beyond being halved
1
WOW. That's interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn't work in the US, unfortunately.
55It's the same thing Brazil did.
He's rich enough that he's kind of a parent corporation by himself, so:
X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the "provider" of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms.
But yeah, American law has been limited so the buck stops at the company which declares bankruptcy and the money starts a new company.
Not everyone else system is as shitty
40
It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?
-33Absolutely and without question yes
4Fines are for punishment and further prevention.
Usually, fines are for the poor, but when it's a % of something, that's usually quite more significant.
Also, when you knowingly and willfully break the law, you're liable as a person, even if you're behind an LLC.
1Unironically, yes. You shouldn't be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.
"Oh, guess we can't fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they'll get to continue breaking the law for cheap"
Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.
61Sounds good in principle, but isn't the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company's finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you're the one they're coming for. I hope you're as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company's affairs.
3
Shipping companies setup separate LLC's for their ships so of they have an accident the ship goes bankrupt and they keep their profits shielded.. that kind of stuff is bullshit
6Yes. Like every system, there are those who abuse it. But you must be careful so that while trying to punish those abusers, you don't end up creating avenues to also punish those who don't abuse the system, but simply make a mistake. This sets a precedent so that the government can target the assets of the owner of the company if they're not satisfied the company punishment, which doesn't sound as cool when the company in question is your family's bakery or your neighbor's paralegal office.
0
Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?
17