Well yeah. The prime way they avoid the law is compliance. You would also be pretty pissed off if you couldn't avoid a law fining you for something you couldn't avoid.

And they do get their day in the courts as well:

From _today_ in a judgement pretty much identical to the one on Apple/Ireland:

> Commission orders recovery of around €14 million in incompatible German State aid from Frankfurt-Hahn airport and Ryanair

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...

---

> On Friday, January 31, 2020, courts in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States approved analogous versions of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between prosecutors and Airbus that include a combined fine of $3.96 billion for the aircraft manufacturer. The resolution ends multi-year investigations by the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (Parquet National Financier or PNF), the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2020/01/four-ye...

> Antitrust: Commission fines car manufacturers €875 million for restricting competition in emission cleaning for new diesel passenger cars

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...

Yep, which is why they get the stick of courts as well. What a strange argument.

What’s strange is to say it’s only an anerican issue.

Which is why I didn't say that :D

> I find it interesting how in american corpspeak "uncertanty" pretty much always means "our lawyers can't find a way to avoid this law without getting caught" ^^

What does “american” here mean then?

And it's wrong when they do it, too.

> I find it interesting how in american corpspeak "uncertanty" pretty much always means "our lawyers can't find a way to avoid this law without getting caught" ^^

Only if they're doing this.

Did VW ever complain about uncertainty in diesel gate?

When you do shit to bend and avoid complying with the rules as much as possible, you don't get to complain about uncertainty on application of said rules.

Only if they use the word "uncertainty" in that way. Do they?

It is no surprise culturally that they do. When innocence/technical compliance with the law is no defense against the law why bother?

That's exactly right. Corporations need the law to be as predictable as a computer program, so they can find exactly where the loopholes are and slip through them. I'd be surprised if American politicians didn't make laws this way on purpose.

A law that says "you aren't taxed on money you send to overseas subsidiaries" is trivially gameable. A law that says "don't evade tax" is not, so corporations hate not knowing which side of the blurry line they're on. An ethical corporation (as if that exists) would just stay clear of the blurry region and have no problem.