Regulations, a lot of times, tend to have the opposite of the intended effect. In this case, you'd need to define what is meant by "having data".
Is having an email or phone enough to qualify?
Maybe yes.
In that case, think of a rapidly growing startup, which breaches that mark (50% or whatever the law says) - and now has to comply with the law.
But the startup is not capable of compliance, because the law was made for behemoths like google.
This startup will go belly over and die soon.
Google's monopoly saved.
Alternatively, leaving it in the public domain for civil suits to be filed has a tendency of natural selection. If a company is TRULY big enough, and has that kind of data, someone WILL sue.
> In that case, think of a rapidly growing startup, which breaches that mark (50% or whatever the law says) - and now has to comply with the law.
> But the startup is not capable of compliance, because the law was made for behemoths like google.
If I were 'king of the world' I would consider something like this, but would not have it be a binary 'must comply or exempt' but a spectrum of ranges from 'totally exempt' to 'totally regulated' depending on what percentage of 50% you had.
If you have 5% of user emails, you are responsible for the bottom 10% of regulations and/or you need to fully comply with the regulations for a sample size of 10% of your users.
IDK I need to give it more thought, but first, another zoom meeting awaits.
That doesn't sound very realistic to me. A startup doesn't just capture 50% of any significant market over night. It will have plenty of time to hire some compliance staff as it grows.
Regulation and civil lawsuits don't serve the same purpose. Regulation is making the rules. Courts interpret the rules in light of a specific situation.
I agree that regulation can be counter productive. It can create a level playing field or cement dominant positions of encumbants. So let's have good regulation.
Is having an email or phone enough to qualify?
Maybe yes.
In that case, think of a rapidly growing startup, which breaches that mark (50% or whatever the law says) - and now has to comply with the law.
But the startup is not capable of compliance, because the law was made for behemoths like google.
This startup will go belly over and die soon.
Google's monopoly saved.
Alternatively, leaving it in the public domain for civil suits to be filed has a tendency of natural selection. If a company is TRULY big enough, and has that kind of data, someone WILL sue.