Painless Fines: Why Small Penalties Don't Change How Big Tech Operates

Published on January 16, 2026 | Translated from Spanish
Conceptual illustration showing an unbalanced scale of justice: on one side a huge pile of gold coins (profits) and on the other, a single small coin (fine). In the background, a generic logo of a video game company.

Painless Fines: Why Small Penalties Don't Change How Big Tech Operates

Imposing an economic penalty on a giant in the video game sector or digital platforms often fails to achieve its main objective: changing their behavior. 🎮 The root problem arises when the amount to pay is insignificant compared to the massive revenues generated by breaking the rules. This, in practice, sends a clear message to the company.

The Perverse Calculation of Profitability

When the penalty only represents a minor operational cost, companies do not see a real reason to transform the strategies that bring them profits. Systems designed to incentivize repeated spending, often targeted at vulnerable audiences, remain extremely profitable. The business model absorbs the fine as just another expense.

Why Low Fines Fail:
  • The company does a simple balance: billion-dollar profits versus a penalty of a few million.
  • The sanctioned activity retains its financial appeal, so the perverse incentive to continue persists.
  • The penalty can be treated as a "cost of doing business" and even deducted.
A fine that the company can pay without issue using one month's marketing budget is not a penalty; it's the price of a license to operate on the edge of the law.

Real Deterrence: Returning the Profits

Regulation analysts and user advocates argue that to truly deter, the economic benefit obtained questionably must be completely eliminated. The effective approach involves forcing the company to return the full amount of money to those affected, a concept often called disgorgement of profits or restitution. 💸

Key Elements of an Effective Deterrent Measure:
  • Ensure that the company keeps none of the profits obtained through potentially deceptive tactics.
  • Especially protect the most vulnerable groups, such as minors, who can be exploited by these systems.
  • Create a financial consequence that makes the model no longer attractive and forces a rethinking of core strategies.

Conclusion: Without Proportional Losses, There Is No Change

In summary, only when the consequence involves directly losing everything gained, or a very substantial part

Related Links