1y ago

Why are Europeans more effective at passing big legislation than the US?

EU has done really well on passing big laws such as GDPR in the recent years, while the US can't even seem to decide whether to fund their own government. Why do you think Europe is doing better than the US? One would think that since EU is more diverse it would be harder to find common ground. And there were examples of that during the Greece debt crisis. But not anymore, it seems.

You're viewing a single thread.

69 comments

Indeed Europe makes a lot more progress from the point of view of human beings (as opposed to the point of view of corps). But it’s worth noting that Europe can’t actually make effective use of their legislation. No teeth.
Take the #GDPR for example. EU courts are weak, so when your GDPR rights are violated in Europe you have no recourse. You can file a complaint with the DPA under article 77, but the DPA just sits on these complaints because there is no law that forces DPAs to act on article 77 complaints. The GDPR says you can take direct action in court, but the Austrians have neutered that option. Someone sued a GDPR offender, an Austrian court sided with the victim, but then the victim was still forced to eat his own legal costs! That precedent-setting decision killed the only means for remedy.
A courtroom victory in Europe is purely symbolic. The winner still loses from a cost standpoint.
The US is much better w.r.t court actions. Court cases are cheap & easy to open. When you win, the loser pays the legal costs. it works really well. But the problem is there are no decent laws in the US to empower people to take legal action.
What we need is EU legislation with a US court system.
- the DPA just sits on these complaints
  That's an interesting claim, can you support it somehow?
  https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ currently lists over 2000 cases of GDPR penalties
  the Austrians have neutered that option. Someone sued a GDPR offender, an Austrian court sided with the victim, but then the victim was still forced to eat his own legal costs! That precedent-setting decision killed the only means for remedy.
  I'm not sure what your reasoning here is. How do Austrian court proceedings affect what is happening in other countries?
  Afaik the only court that would directly affect the legal situation of other countries ist the ECJ.
  
  I’m aware of enforcementtracker.com which is used to show that some cases are cherry picked for enforcement. 2000 cases is an embarrassment. I would love to see an “unenforcement·com” service where we can all publish our reports that get irrationally dismissed or mothballed. I’ve filed reports on dozens of #GDPR violations over the years and not a single act of enforcement resulted. One report was dismissed instantly by a 1st tier office worker on bogus rationale.
  To worsen matters and exacerbate the problem, some member state’s DPAs operate in a non-transparent fashion so your report is concealed even from yourself and you get zero progress information or interaction. You only get notified in the end if an enforcement action was taken. They’ve never contacted me to provide more info on any of my reports either, which suggests no slight amount progress either.
  How do Austrian court proceedings affect what is happening in other countries?
  Afaik the only court that would directly affect the legal situation of other countries ist the ECJ.
  That’s beyond me. I recall reading about that decision that came out of some high court in Austria and the report said that it set a precedence for the whole EU.
  What I’ve seen in the US is that any lawyer can use any other case as a precedent for the court to consider even if the case happened in a different state, but there are varying degrees of utility. The lower the court, the less weight the result carries. And when a result from a different jurisdiction is used, it still has merit but less so than cases in the same jurisdiction.
  I know in Europe it’s the same as far as highness of a court & proportional weight. The lowest of court decisions are used in aggregate. But I’m a bit fuzzy on crossing jurisdictional boundaries on EU-wide law.
  Note that the GDPR has a specific consistency clause. Outcomes in different member states must be consistent for similar violations. Perhaps the Austrian decision is relevant EU-wide because of this consistency requirement.
  
  I would love to see an “unenforcement·com” service where we can all publish our reports that get irrationally dismissed or mothballed
  So it doesn't exist and you have no statistics to support your claim beyond personal anecdotes.
  What I’ve seen in the US is that any lawyer can use any other case as a precedent for the court to consider even if the case happened in a different state
  Yes the US have are a common law country and have a national legal framework.
  Most EU countries have civil law so other courts decisions are not legally binding, only the word of the law is. Also beyond EU directives and the ECJ, each country still has its own independent legal system.
  GDPR has a specific consistency clause
  You mean Art. 63?
  In order to contribute to the consistent application of this Regulation throughout the Union, the **supervisory authorities **shall cooperate with each other and, where relevant, with the Commission, through the consistency mechanism as set out in this Section.
  It doesn't seem to mention courts at all.
  I certainly don't see how it would make decisions of regional courts binding in other countries.
  
  So it doesn’t exist and you have no statistics to support your claim beyond personal anecdotes.
  Trusting the accuracy of my experience is a problem for you, not me. I’ve seen the dysfunctionality many times over 1st hand & I’ve often heard other GDPR complainants say the same. I’ve been to privacy conferences where speakers talk about how their complaint citing many different violations would be acted on on the basis of just one of the violations. Someone from Noyb said a DPA cherry-picked 1 out of 6 or so violations and enforced it. But then the other violations simply got ignored. And their complaint about the ignored complaints was also ignored. I’ve seen the same, where the front desk gave a bogus rationale that (even if correct) could only possibly refute 1 out of my 8 or so cited violations.
  The problem is widespread enough that Digital Courage plans to ask the EU to write a new law that actually forces DPAs to enforce article 77. Watch for it.
  Most EU countries have civil law so other courts decisions are not legally binding, only the word of the law is.
  The word of law can be very ambiguous. Even in Europe. It still needs interpretation.
  This is what happened when a data subject demanded that a data controller list who they share the data with. The letter of the GDPR law says they only have to mention categories of info that’s shared, not who it is shared with. So the data controller refused the request. That clause was recently (this year) “interpretted” such that data controllers actually do have to state who they share with (which contradicts the word of law). It’s a good outcome for consumers, but a contradiction that proves you cannot rely on the word of law in Europe.
  It doesn’t seem to mention courts at all.
  You can ask the source’s author (Noyb) directly yourself how an Austrian court decision had EU-wide impact.
- The US is much better w.r.t court actions. Court cases are cheap & easy to open. When you win, the loser pays the legal costs.
  Not generally, no.
  
  Nonsense. Of course it is. I’ve sued several corporations in the US. It’s trivially easy. Fill out a form, submit with $50—90 in fees, get those fees back when you win (and you win by default if the other party does not show up). I even sued a major bank for under $70 once. Won, got awarded court fees, and got paid. It was simple. It’s even standard on the court complaint form to ask for interest compensation for the duration of the dispute & that’s typically awarded as well. No case is too small or too big to get a remedy in the US. I’ve tested this in two different states.
  Getting remedies like this is impossible in Europe. European courts are useless for any case under €10k. I’ve been ripped off by rogue contractors & others in amounts of €3k-7k. Had solid evidence but the court system is designed to penalize everyone involved. If you have a case worth less than €10k in Europe, your best move is to eat the loss and forget about court. Take it on the chin because you’ll lose even more if you chase it. Under €10k you can get what Europeans call a “cerimonial win”, where the judge says your right, but your costs still match or exceed the amount of the dispute.
  There’s also an upper limit in Europe. Class action lawsuits→ non-existent.
  I’ve been ripped off in both continents several times. In the US I always get a remedy via various different channels, some of which work before things even get to court. In Europe I always have to eat the loss. Exceptionally I had one court case in Europe, won, but still had to pay for my own registered letter expenses despite the fact that the wrongdoing by the other party was what forced me to send reg’d letters. Legal advisors told me even though the judge agreed with me in the verbal judgement, I would likely have to pay all the court costs when the written judgement arrives (as a winning defendant!). I got lucky and the plaintiff had to cover the court costs in my case. This is somewhat exceptional.
  
  My European lifestyle differs from that of the US largely because of Europe’s lack of remedies for individuals who are damaged. In the US you can fearlessly enter contracts & loosely buy any product/service you want because consumer protections are far superiour for consumers who are willing to take action.
  Europe’s style of consumer protection ignores the individual. If many consumers get burnt/scammed by the same supplier, regulators will take action on behalf of the people if there’s sufficient critical mass of people affected. And when a fine hits, the victims still get no compensation -- just satisfaction of knowing the baddy was corrected. More commonly you get burnt in a one-off transaction in which case you’re a neglegible case.
  This means I’m incredibly cautious about who I do business with in Europe. I do not front money to contractors. If a deal seems too good to be true, I walk. When there is no confidence in consumer protection, fewer transactions happen. And now that I see how unenforced the GDPR is, I distrust data controllers with my data and often opt not to transact at all for that reason.
  
  Nonsense. Of course it is.
  The losing party does not automatically pay the winner's costs in the USA.
  The American rule (capitalized as American Rule in some U.S. states) is the default legal rule in the United States controlling assessment of attorneys' fees arising out of litigation. It provides that each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees,[1][2] unless specific authority granted by statute or contract allows the assessment of those fees against the other party.
  
  Ah, that’s interesting. My cases were pro se so I had no lawyers fees. The costs of filing the court case and serving the defendant were always covered by the loser in my cases.

69 comments