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.
WOW. That’s interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn’t work in the US, unfortunately.
It’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
Removed by mod
Less considering more doing
It’s finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!
woohoo!
and this is why we dont fuck with the chinese wall
break his ability to finance the orange felon
How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as “cost of doing business”
4% of gross revenue is not a negligible amount. For no company.
Start at 100% and work down from there?
Probably, but it would depend on how much gross revenue they make on said practice, and how often they get a fine.
I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock
For twitter, he actually isn’t. That was the original plan, but he moved away from it and got additional external financing, and then put up more cash himself by selling additional Tesla stock.
Not sure about boring company / neuralink.
Do it if you’re bad
DO IT!
As much as I hate musk, I don’t think this is correct, or even legal…?
While I have no idea about legality, it is quite obvious that X/Twitter is not really run as a company run as a public communications platform, but rather as a fever dream of Musk.
Especially the Eli Lily Co. disaster should’ve been a wake up call for X of how much harm the fake checkmarks can bring, yet nothing was done. Most likely because Elon Musk didn’t care. He basically runs it like it’s how little service that he fully owns and controls with full disregard to anything but his own vision.
Therefore including his other businesses makes sense, as the fine that is only based on X’s income would probably be negligible in his opinion, as he runs it on a loss anyways. Only bigger fines would actually have any effect in my opinion.
I still can’t believe nothing substantive came of that.
It was incredibly harmful to the reputation and stock value of multiple pharmaceutical companies as well as Twitter. And then the greedy pharma assholes had to publicly announce they were still price-gauging people for life-sustaining medicine, making the reputational damage even worse.
That very much reads like “the ends justifies the means” logic. If a fine isn’t likely to change behavior, they should just block the platform.
Wven better, do like brazil; block and fine
he’s the one whose blurred the lines between the businesses.
taking funds from one to pay for the other regularly.
I’d say the EU has every right to do it this way.
Corporations do this regularly. Using funds from one branch of their business to prop up others. That’s neither new or illegal in the EU.
you’re right, it’s not. but when legally attempting to distinguish where one company ends and the other begins, it’s up to the court to judge based on liquidity between the two.
if you run company A B and C and have money flowing from A to C and C to B and B to A, the feds might think you’re laundering money.
He’s free to leave the EU at anytime. They are allowed to create appropriate punishments to deter further misuse. They are saying here that they need to be able to punish more to deter him, as he’s an asshole who says fuck you to everyone.
Who cares about legal if it hurts republicans?
legality i don’t know, but guess who has an infinite supply of lawyers? Musk was able to secure loans for his Twitter misadventure based on all his other shit. Everything he does is entangled with his other stuff. The Hyperloop? lies.
Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.
Haters gonna hate
It would be a pleasant surprise to see someone in his class receive a punishment (that is completely deserved) that is more than “a slap on the wrist.”
I’m comfortable saying I hate Elon Musk. He’s a petulant man-baby who’s become one of the most problematic stains on the earth
Yeah because he’s totally innocent.
You know he doesn’t care about you at all, right?
It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?
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
Yes. 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.
Shit take. Get judged by peers
Everyone thanks you for your helpful insight into this topic.
You can subscribe to
I don’t know if this will be a big issue for small businesses. But in any case where there is construction of multiple companies in a structure to separate profits and losses for fuckery with taxes and fines, I think I would also be OK with that whole structure being seen as one entity and treated as such.
The billionaire class however is uniquely adept at this kind of fuckery and wield an ungodly level of power, only surpassed by governments. And I think governments need to be careful that these assholes don’t get too much power… so it’s high time they take them down a peg… or 10.
It will be an issue because your average citizen won’t be so willing to start a new business if they know the government can come after their personal funds as a consequence of something that was done at the company level.
Who said personal funds. Are you arguing slippery slope or moving the goal posts?
You are going for the assets of the owner, which are unrelated to the company in question. Effectively devaluating companies that are not the infringing one, which directly affect the person’s net worth. This is no different than the government straight up taking money from your investments or 401K.
<…> your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.
Are not subject to DSA. For the most part DSA only covers companies which have more than 45 million users in the European Union.
Whether it’s subject to DSA or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a company has to pay a fine to the government, whatever the infraction might be, and the government is trying to force something else, not the company in question, to pay the fine.
It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought. But ignoring that, there are clear limits. This would only apply to cases where corporate assets were used as personal ones. Hence, the limitation to private companies that have sole owners.
And you talk like this is some novel never heard of approach. Personal liability applies to many actions under the law, just corporations managed to lobby it down for themselves. And your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.
It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.
Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.
Personal liability applies to many actions under the law
Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.
your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.
What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?
I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place. Follow the law, and you are good in the EU, no matter which size business you are.
If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?
Here you go again. If they decide to go through with it, no Musk rights will be violated, there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this.
They also lose any claim to the cargo as well if they bankrupt the ship. It’s the same idea as buying an umbrella insurance policy, if you suffer a major loss, you lose the asset, but you don’t lose anything else.
But I agree, we should probably have tighter standards on what qualifies for liability protection, as well as a record of past abuse of liability protection to prevent future abuse (i.e. your LLC application would be denied if you’ve bankrupted too many prior companies). So we should be stopping this at the source, not retroactively removing the liability protections because the government made a stupid contract.
If the cargo is a few million barrels of oil now the problem of the government who’s shores it threatens… you don’t really care do you?
That would be on the company’s insurance to cover, and shipping companies should be absolutely required to carry insurance for things like oil spills.
Sure… mostly they do… but then captains are drunk, maintenance is poor and the insurance declines to pay… or drags that out through court for 2 decades… meanwhile governments have to foot the bill. The examples are endless unfortunately.
deleted by creator
Unironically, 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.
Sounds 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.
isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances?
It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.
I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.
But it can’t be retroactive. If you change the nature of legal protection, that should only impact actions going forward. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US, as they should be in any country where the rule of law is to be taken seriously.
Poor comprehension of the law. LLC in the vast majority of the western world means limited liability, not absolute immunity. Owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their companies, but their liability is limited when other members of the company act without their knowledge or in bad faith, or damages are unintentional. If the damage was intentional and the actions were sanctioned and approved by ownership or leadership they are absolutely liable for the legal repercussions. Liability is limited also for multiple owners, a hedge fund cannot be held responsible for the action of a company they only own 5% of and has an indirect influence on the actions of leadership. The really important element here is that Musk is being identified as acting as primary agent, not just Twitter, and using assets and resources from his other companies. Thus, it’s not Twitter acting, it’s Musk who is acting, and then fines can be on all of his capital holdings, not just Twitter. This nuance of law is exactly according to the laws in place in the EU.
Give it up. Lemmy thinks “corporation” means “megacorp”, has no clue about financial dealings outside what they read in the headlines and can’t spell “LLC”.
“Capitalism BAD!”, is what you should be posting.
Allowing limited liability companies to exist without requiring them to be covered by liability insurance is institutionalised market failure.
The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy… those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.
So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?
There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
He continues to do so because he’s proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he’s an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.
Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
I don’t know, and nobody else knows.
To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create “Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC” and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he’s sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create “Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC” and do whatever he wants?
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can’t just hide behind “Oh that wasn’t me, that was the company” or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."
If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.
I don’t think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.
In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.
Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.
LLCs shouldn’t exist in the first place.
A companys owner should always be liable for the laws its company breaks.
I strongly disagree. That said, I think liability protection should reduce the larger your organization gets. A mom-and-pop restaurant shouldn’t have their house get taken if their restaurant gets e-coli, but a CEO should go to jail for cutting safety spending to improve quarterly profits.
That said, if you have a legal agreement that certain assets are protected, you can’t just waive it away because you don’t like the trick they pulled. If the policy isn’t meeting the original goals, the policy should be changed, and anyone who got away with a loophole should be protected by that legal mistake, otherwise we have a system of feels instead of laws.
I guess that’s your opinion.
Absolutely and without question yes
Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?
Yes. Next question.
