• AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 days ago

    The law was announced a long time before it came into effect, so companies that didn’t do anything to become compliant in advance were playing chicken in the hope that it’d be repealed before they ever had to obey it.

    • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The law was announced a long time before it came into effect,

      Isn’t one of the basic principles of law that laws can not be made retroactive so as to arbitrarily extract punishment? if someone tells me “we’ll implement this law in 2026” and they do commit, then I’m unconcerned until 2025-12-31.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        But if you break the law after on 2026 you don’t get any excuse for not having time to adapt to the new circumstances.

        • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Eh, if it’s an unfair law it has to be fought. And since we have seen in Trump’s world the courts are not the place for that, I can think of very few places to do it. Most of them can equip guillotines, tho.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s not actually a bad strategy, ultimately the law is probably going to get slapped down as unworkable and there’s pretty good evidence to suggest that they knew it wouldn’t work even before they implemented it, which won’t make them look good.

      Unfortunately the courts move so slowly that none of this has happened yet and the law has now gone into effect because the timer ran out, but in theory they could have done all the work to comply only for the law never to have happened.