I think you mean profit, not revenue. 99 million is enough for them to alter their behavior and for heads to roll without putting themat a strategic disadvantage in the market.
Fines need to be significant relative to revenue, not profit. Otherwise, they become a “cost of doing business.” A punishment isn’t a punishment unless it hurts.
I'm not sure what your question is getting at, but if I owned a business, a fine proportional to the profit that I would otherwise receive would hurt equally for a low margin business and a high margin business.
That’s the point: if you can’t profit off my personal data while simultaneously protecting it as a “low margin,” your business doesn’t need to exist. Fines relative to revenue hurt every business a lot, which is how it should be. A massive data breach should be cause for going out of business, not “oh, we’re taking X% of your profits this year, but we totally trust you to do better next year.”
I don't agree with your point at all. A high margin business should then be able to get away with massive data breaches compared to a low margin business going bust? It's not about fairness, it's about actually achieving your goals.
