Punishing Large-Scale Corporate Law Breakers: Effective Strategies

Large-scale companies are often punished for breaking laws, but the fines they receive are usually less than the profits they make from their illegal activities. This is due to a combination of factors, including the ability of large companies to influence laws and regulations through lobbying and campaign donations, the complexity and decentralisation of large companies, and the power imbalance between these companies and their smaller counterparts.

Large companies have the resources to hire expensive lawyers who can delay proceedings and negotiate settlements, as well as influence lawmakers and regulators to ensure that any penalties are lenient. The decentralised nature of large companies also makes it difficult to prove knowledge and intent, and to assign blame to specific individuals within the organisation.

Additionally, large companies often have market power, which can make it harder for consumers, employees, and suppliers to switch to competitors, blow the whistle, or certify allegations. This power can also be used to force counterparties to sign gag clauses and class action waivers, further reducing the likelihood of private enforcement.

In summary, the ability of large-scale companies to shape the regulatory framework, combined with the fragmentation of knowledge and power imbalances within these organisations, results in weaker enforcement and more lenient penalties when they break the law.

Large corporations have the resources to hire the best lawyers, who can negotiate fines down

Large corporations have extensive financial resources at their disposal, which they can use to hire the best lawyers to represent them in legal matters. These lawyers are often able to negotiate reduced fines for their clients, even when the company is in the wrong.

For example, in 2024, the European Union fined Apple almost $2 billion for not allowing music streaming services to communicate directly with their subscribers within their apps, an unfair trading practice. Apple called the decision "misguided" and stated that it would appeal, and indeed, the fine amounted to less than two days' worth of earnings for the company. In another instance, Amazon was slapped with a $35 million fine by a French regulator for closely monitoring warehouse employees' productivity, violating the General Data Protection Regulation. Amazon earned nearly $1.6 billion per day, enabling it to pay the fine in just 32 minutes.

These cases demonstrate that large corporations can afford to hire expensive lawyers, who can negotiate more favourable outcomes, even when faced with significant fines. The companies' vast resources allow them to prolong legal battles, make appeals, and utilise various legal tactics to reduce the financial impact of penalties.

While large companies have the advantage of financial might, it is important to recognise that they still face significant consequences for breaking the law. These consequences can include not only fines but also negative publicity, damage to their reputation, and loss of consumer trust. In some cases, companies may even face criminal charges and jail time for their executives.

Furthermore, while large corporations may have the upper hand in terms of financial resources, individuals and smaller entities should not be deterred from seeking legal recourse against them. It is crucial to seek experienced legal representation and be prepared for a potentially lengthy and complex battle. By presenting a strong case and utilising strategies such as public relations campaigns, it is possible to hold these corporations accountable and achieve a favourable outcome.

Fines are often one size fits all, so larger companies can capitalise on illegal activity to a scale that eclipses the fine

Fines are often implemented as a one-size-fits-all punishment, which can be problematic when applied to large-scale companies. Due to their extensive resources and capital, these companies can engage in illegal activities that generate profits far exceeding the fines they may face as a consequence. This creates an imbalanced situation where the potential rewards of unlawful behaviour outweigh the risks.

The issue is that a flat-rate fine does not consider the financial position of the offending party. As a result, a fine that serves as a deterrent or punishment for smaller entities may be insignificant to a large corporation. This disparity can lead to an unfair advantage for larger companies, distorting the market and creating an uneven playing field for smaller competitors.

To address this issue, some have proposed implementing fines that are relative to the financial position of the offending entity. This could involve setting fines as a percentage of a company's revenue or profits. By doing so, the punishment would be more proportional to the offence and would deter larger companies from engaging in illegal activities.

Additionally, it is worth noting that large companies often have the resources to hire expensive lawyers and lobbyists, which can further reduce the likelihood of significant punishment. They may be able to negotiate more favourable settlements or even influence laws to benefit their interests.

The current system of flat-rate fines can inadvertently encourage large companies to view unlawful behaviour as a viable strategy, as long as the potential profits outweigh the expected fines. This dynamic undermines the rule of law and creates an uneven playing field for smaller businesses that may not have the same financial resources or legal expertise.

To ensure a fair and just legal system, it is crucial to consider the impact of one-size-fits-all fines on large-scale companies and explore alternative approaches that better align punishment with the financial position of the offending party.

Large corporations can buy lobbyists to influence laws, making them more lenient

Large corporations can exert influence over laws and policymakers through lobbying, which is a widely accepted practice in many countries. Lobbying involves direct, face-to-face contact with legislators and government officials to shape policies and decisions. While lobbying is legal, it has been criticised for allowing those with socioeconomic power to influence laws in their favour, creating a conflict of interest.

The success of lobbying efforts depends on access to decision-makers and the ability to pressure them. Lobbyists may include amateur individuals, such as voters or constituents, but also professional lobbyists who are hired to influence legislation on behalf of corporations or other interest groups. The latter are often well-connected and possess valuable industry knowledge, making them effective advocates for their clients' interests.

In the United States, for example, lobbying is protected by the First Amendment and the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. While lobbying is not explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment, the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is interpreted as including the right to lobby. The Lobbying Disclosure Act defines what constitutes lobbying, who must register as lobbyists, and the actions they must take to comply with the law.

The effectiveness of lobbying is evident in the significant returns on investment that corporations have achieved. A 2011 study found that the top 50 firms spending on lobbying relative to their assets outperformed the S&P 500, with returns comparable to those of a high-flying hedge fund. Similarly, a 2009 study revealed that lobbying generated a return on investment of up to 22,000% in certain cases.

However, lobbying has faced criticism and concerns due to its potential to distort democratic processes and serve special interests. In some countries, such as South Korea, lobbying is viewed as a form of corruption and is illegal.

To address these concerns, some countries have implemented regulations and transparency measures. For example, Canada, the European Union, and Australia maintain lobbyist registers, and the EU has introduced binding rules on lobby transparency. These measures aim to increase transparency and establish ethical standards for lobbyists and lobbied officials.

Despite these efforts, lobbying remains a powerful tool for large corporations to influence laws and policies. By hiring skilled lobbyists and leveraging their financial resources, corporations can shape legislation in their favour, potentially undermining the general welfare and benefiting their own interests.

The US has regressive tax laws, so fines are easier for the rich to pay

Large-scale companies can be punished for breaking laws in a variety of ways, including fines, penalties, and settlements. For instance, in recent years, companies have been sanctioned for data breaches and non-compliance with security and privacy laws. The size of the fines imposed on these companies suggests that regulators are taking a harder stance on organisations that fail to protect consumer data adequately.

In the United States, the tax system can be categorised as regressive, progressive, or proportional. A regressive tax is one where low-income earners pay a larger percentage of their income than middle- and high-income earners. This is because the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. The US has a progressive income tax system, meaning higher earners pay a higher percentage of taxes on their top dollars compared to lower-income earners. However, certain taxes in the US are considered regressive, such as state sales taxes, user fees, and property taxes to some degree.

The regressivity of a tax can be influenced by the propensity of taxpayers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their resources. If the taxed activity is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely by the rich, the tax is considered regressive. For example, excise taxes on cheap beer or cigarettes are regressive because they are consumed more by low-income individuals, who will spend a larger proportion of their income on these taxed items. Similarly, sales taxes are regressive because they are imposed uniformly on all consumers, regardless of income. While the tax rate may be the same for everyone, it represents a higher percentage of a low-income earner's total income.

The US Social Security payroll tax is also regressive, as it is levied as a flat tax rate on wages and salaries up to a certain limit. Everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings, regardless of their income level. This means that higher-income earners are exempt from the tax beyond that threshold, while lower-income earners continue to pay the same percentage.

The impact of regressive taxes falls disproportionately on low-income individuals and households, who allocate a larger share of their income to taxed goods and services. This can lead to economic inequality, increased financial stress, decreased productivity, and reduced consumer spending.

Therefore, the US's regressive tax laws can make it easier for wealthy large-scale companies to pay fines for breaking laws, as the fines may represent a smaller percentage of their total income compared to smaller companies or individuals.

Fines are just a cost of doing business

Large-scale companies are often punished for breaking laws through fines, which, for these corporations, may simply be viewed as a cost of doing business. This perspective is evident when considering the substantial revenue and profit margins of these companies, rendering the fines relatively insignificant. For instance, Amazon's net income for the first quarter of 2023 was $3.2 billion, while it was fined a total of $31 million for privacy violations.

This trend is not isolated to a single company or incident, as numerous corporations have been implicated in similar situations. Meta Platforms Ireland Limited ("Meta Ireland"), a subsidiary of Meta, was fined $1.3 billion for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by unlawfully transferring personal data from the EU to the US. Despite the substantial fine, Meta's global affairs president, Nick Clegg, announced their intention to appeal the decision. Didi Global, a Chinese ride-sharing company, was fined $1.19 billion by the Cyberspace Administration of China for violating data protection and security laws.

The frequency of these occurrences and the sheer magnitude of the companies involved underscore the notion that fines are just a cost of doing business for these corporations. It is worth noting that the impact of these fines on deterring future corporate crimes is questionable, especially considering the recidivism rates of these companies.

The effectiveness of fines as a deterrent is further diminished by the practical limitations of entity-level fines. These fines primarily affect shareholders, who may not have the necessary incentives or understanding to address the underlying issues. Additionally, the stock prices of these companies tend to recover quickly after the imposition of penalties, reducing the likelihood of shareholders demanding substantial changes to prevent future incidents.

As a result, it is evident that large corporations often view fines as a mere cost of doing business. To increase deterrence and hold individuals accountable, enforcement agencies need to explore alternative measures beyond solely relying on entity-level fines.

Frequently asked questions