Yes, great point on the nature of the laws at hand.
I’ll add that the other difference is in the nature of the proceedings too.
The DOJ brought a case against Microsoft, as they are now bringing a case against Apple. The closest similar case for Apple is the one with Spotify. Where the EU tacked on a massive additional fine on top of the primary damages fine.
The DMA, as you state, is a new regulation that has significant room for interpretation. However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.
> However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.
Do you feel that this makes any difference for corporations like Apple?
Proactive and preventative punishments are a powerful tool for something like speeding tickets. They take the position that you are guilty until proven innocent , versus innocent until proven guilty. But those are limited in scope and clear cut.
The DMA by comparison is very far reaching and very loosely scoped by design. However it employs the same guilty until proven innocent model, because it too is trying to prevent the crime before it happens.
To bring this back to speeding tickets. Imagine if instead of fixed speed postings, you just had slow/fast etc. but those applied differently based on the vehicle you were in and you can’t ask about it first. Without clear guidelines, everyone would drive slow to avoid fines, making traffic slow to a crawl.
That’s the goal of the DMA, but it’s also why I think it will reduce innovation in the EU.
To be clear, I think the DMA is well intentioned and I’m personally very pro regulations. I just think it’s poorly implemented and Commission has already used its ability to interpret it as they wish multiple times.
A stricter set of rules, better consultation processes and better third party oversight would rectify it in my opinion.
Contrast this to the way the DoJ operates against Microsoft/Apple. They make the assertion based on the loose anti-competitive definitions, and have to bring it to a judiciary to prove it. It’s innocent until proven guilty.
However for cases like flagrant violation of well specified rules (like the EPA has), the government can bring direct charges. But again, those are well specified.
I don't know. If Apple or any other large corporation is contesting the "speeding ticket" it goes to the courts, where the financial power to hire the best attorneys, consultants and experts certainly counts.
I am also not sure about the alleged lack of specificity. Apple's violations seem rather glaring and obvious to me.
I’ll add that the other difference is in the nature of the proceedings too.
The DOJ brought a case against Microsoft, as they are now bringing a case against Apple. The closest similar case for Apple is the one with Spotify. Where the EU tacked on a massive additional fine on top of the primary damages fine.
The DMA, as you state, is a new regulation that has significant room for interpretation. However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.