Which? argues that a customer who would have theoretically paid £1.99 for the service but was not able to do so because the actual £2.99 price was unaffordable suffered a £1 loss, even though the customer paid nothing.
Maybe you have to be a lawyer to understand this, because to me it sounds like complete nonsense.
Maybe it means the customer lost a theoretical £1 in value?
3 billion is just 0,8% of Apple’s revenue in 2025. And the number is based on 43 million people being owed 70 pounds by Apple.
This narrative has to come with more sense. I am sick of seeing it trotted out whenever there are fines handed down.
-
Revenue is not theirs, it is the high water mark and a nice headline but it does not account for anything so its relationship to a fine is irrelevant.
-
The intent of comments like this is to highlight that the fines are just a cost of business but then fail to consider how that cost is managed against its particular infringing product. For example if you heard google got a 3 billion euro fine you might suggest it being nothing to them, but what if the product it related to was google keep the post it app. Does that product seem likely to generate 3 billion for them? No, so the fine would encourage change.
-
Fines should be hard hitting, not destroying. They need to be handed out for everything not huge ones that encompass the general mood.
iClous makes a lot of money but a 3 billion increase operating costs is significant. The acknowledgement from both the government and apple will create an interest in further regulations and actions. If the fine is given, they will also have to change, it isnt that they can pay it and keep doing it unless the regulators lose their teeth.
All that would be true IF they actually have to pay the money. A lot of the time it just gets stalled, thrown out or pardoned.
-
