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 with the value they are betting on winning being the cosmetic they want to win.
You don't need to "wager" robux for it to be gambling. You pay real money for robux (or whatever intermediate "currency") then spend robux to buy lootboxes (for example) which then by having very bad odds to get the thing you actually want, counts as gambling.
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.
Just ban all games in the EU.It's all gambling and blood and fragging and gore and 6 second catgirl videos. Push mandatory age verification and make it illegal for anyone under 18 to use the web, it's all bots and slop and predators anyway.
I'm not even sure I'd let my kids (if I had any :() play Roblox. People seem to just let their kids play it for hours without interacting with anyone, and when I do try and play it with kids of friends, etc., the games they play within it are pretty much all low effort trash. I get that creating and sharing games within it is sort of the point, but I don't think I've ever seen something with that much slop, and no one seems to have a problem with kids spending hours wallowing in slop.
But yes, it's one big child exploitation platform.
At some point if they don't follow the law, you actually do want to dismantle them (perhaps by bankrupting via fines). Jobs where the function is to make society worse and perform illegal actions are not actually desirable. It completely makes sense to eliminate those jobs, and possibly jail the people who created them and the people who worked them.
Like if you're building gambling systems for 7 year olds then yes I think you should lose your job and then some. You the programmer, your product manager, your people manager, all the way up the chain. Everyone who participated should be individually accountable.
Slaps on the wrist haven't effected meaningful change in the last several decades so at this point yeah, the penalties for breaking the law should be just as disastrous and life altering for a big company as it is for you and me.
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!
Of one year. How many years does it take complete the investigation and let courts handle appeals? I assume they do not need to change behavior nor can the fine increase during the appeals.
I don't know, there's certainly mixed results so far for the DMA which has harsher penalties and none specifically for how this would play out with the DSA.
We've seen Zuckerburg pivot from openly pledging to defy the EU [1] and then presenting compliant plans six months later to avoid the the periodic fine [2].
But we've also seen Apple in a bid to avoid the periodic fine imposing a ~20% commission [3] on third party payments after their 27% fee was ruled illegal and they were told it must be free [4]. The investigation into that has taken a year now despite being immediately perceived as noncompliant by many developers and ressembling what Google was recently fined €430 million for [5] and Apple seems to feel no pressure to change it.
I guess what happens next to Apple will decide if companies fear this regulation, the periodic fine they were due if they didn't drop the 27% fee was touted to be up to $50m/day retroactively for the entire noncompliance period, which is now at least 400 days so lots of opportunity to send a message.
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?
These laws are not covering things that increase sales by 50%
If that was true, sales would fall to 67% of the pre-law sales. That doesn’t happen. It’s a silly claim.
It would be like the government taking 6% of your total compensation for breaking the speed limit. You could try to speed everywhere to save time but if you get caught it’s going to hurt.
It’s not a “increase sales 50%” scenario. You’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist.
> 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.
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.
What that tweet doesn't mention is how much "big tech" has been fined/settled in the US - which is also billions of dollars collectively for privacy, competition and other issues they created.
And the exponent x is to be chosen by how harsh you want to be. Repeat offenders will quickly run out of money as long as your exponent is reasonably bigger than 1.
If we take an exponent of 2 a repeat offense by OpenAI would look like this:
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.
> But there are a handful of designated platforms that aren’t paying anything in the first round as they reported a loss during the preceding financial year — including Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat and Wikimedia.
Companies are welcome to leave if they don’t agree with the rules, same as what they tell you when you sign their terms and conditions. Isn’t that how the free market works? No one is being forced to do anything.
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.
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 with the value they are betting on winning being the cosmetic they want to win.
You don't need to "wager" robux for it to be gambling. You pay real money for robux (or whatever intermediate "currency") then spend robux to buy lootboxes (for example) which then by having very bad odds to get the thing you actually want, counts as gambling.
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.
How are loot boxes different from slot machines? The underlying psychological mechanics are very similar if not the same.
Just ban all games in the EU.It's all gambling and blood and fragging and gore and 6 second catgirl videos. Push mandatory age verification and make it illegal for anyone under 18 to use the web, it's all bots and slop and predators anyway.
https://archive.is/58cyT
Parents who let their kids play Roblox stun me. That is a cesspit of pedophiles, gambling, child exploitation, and bullying.
Relevant Chris Hansen documentary https://youtu.be/84B-MPFaj5Y
I'm not even sure I'd let my kids (if I had any :() play Roblox. People seem to just let their kids play it for hours without interacting with anyone, and when I do try and play it with kids of friends, etc., the games they play within it are pretty much all low effort trash. I get that creating and sharing games within it is sort of the point, but I don't think I've ever seen something with that much slop, and no one seems to have a problem with kids spending hours wallowing in slop.
But yes, it's one big child exploitation platform.
age verify everyone, then link this id to a digital wallet --easy
[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.
At some point if they don't follow the law, you actually do want to dismantle them (perhaps by bankrupting via fines). Jobs where the function is to make society worse and perform illegal actions are not actually desirable. It completely makes sense to eliminate those jobs, and possibly jail the people who created them and the people who worked them.
Like if you're building gambling systems for 7 year olds then yes I think you should lose your job and then some. You the programmer, your product manager, your people manager, all the way up the chain. Everyone who participated should be individually accountable.
Slaps on the wrist haven't effected meaningful change in the last several decades so at this point yeah, the penalties for breaking the law should be just as disastrous and life altering for a big company as it is for you and me.
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!
Of one year. How many years does it take complete the investigation and let courts handle appeals? I assume they do not need to change behavior nor can the fine increase during the appeals.
I don't know, there's certainly mixed results so far for the DMA which has harsher penalties and none specifically for how this would play out with the DSA.
We've seen Zuckerburg pivot from openly pledging to defy the EU [1] and then presenting compliant plans six months later to avoid the the periodic fine [2].
But we've also seen Apple in a bid to avoid the periodic fine imposing a ~20% commission [3] on third party payments after their 27% fee was ruled illegal and they were told it must be free [4]. The investigation into that has taken a year now despite being immediately perceived as noncompliant by many developers and ressembling what Google was recently fined €430 million for [5] and Apple seems to feel no pressure to change it.
I guess what happens next to Apple will decide if companies fear this regulation, the periodic fine they were due if they didn't drop the 27% fee was touted to be up to $50m/day retroactively for the entire noncompliance period, which is now at least 400 days so lots of opportunity to send a message.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-offer-choices-personal...
[3] https://daringfireball.net/2025/06/apple_app_store_policy_up...
[4] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/23/eu-fines-...
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.
These laws are not covering things that increase sales by 50%
If that was true, sales would fall to 67% of the pre-law sales. That doesn’t happen. It’s a silly claim.
It would be like the government taking 6% of your total compensation for breaking the speed limit. You could try to speed everywhere to save time but if you get caught it’s going to hurt.
It’s not a “increase sales 50%” scenario. You’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist.
> 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)
"This year the European Union will again make more money from fining US tech companies
Than from the total tax income from Europe's own public tech companies!"
https://x.com/levelsio/status/2080314960656159018
What that tweet doesn't mention is how much "big tech" has been fined/settled in the US - which is also billions of dollars collectively for privacy, competition and other issues they created.
This isn't the first year either; maybe US tech companies should start obeying the laws.
I am for more maths in laws like these:
And the exponent x is to be chosen by how harsh you want to be. Repeat offenders will quickly run out of money as long as your exponent is reasonably bigger than 1.If we take an exponent of 2 a repeat offense by OpenAI would look like this:
If you tell them their expenses beforehand, they'll budget them in, though.
How do you budget for 216% of your gross revenue?
"We lose money on every deal, but we plan to make it up in volume" was one of the infamous quotes from the dot.com bubble.
"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.
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 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.
No it’s based on “net income”: revenue - expenses
> But there are a handful of designated platforms that aren’t paying anything in the first round as they reported a loss during the preceding financial year — including Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat and Wikimedia.
Where is that quote from? The OP literally says it's based on "annual global sales", and so does this:
"6 % of the annual worldwide turnover"
https://streamlex.eu/articles/dsa-en-art-52/
Which is also with good reason, as there's tons of ways to make your profit basically zero or even negative.
Companies are welcome to leave if they don’t agree with the rules, same as what they tell you when you sign their terms and conditions. Isn’t that how the free market works? No one is being forced to do anything.
It's all fun and games until you are technologically stunted and entirely dependent on others for it.
What do you mean by "until"? I would argue that this situation is the _result_ of being stunted and dependent in the first place.
This crank agrees with you: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1169760433188...
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.
>This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.
Yes, exactly - isn't that the point?