I think the point is that laws/regulations should always be followed. Not followed _unless it's cost effective to break them_. If they're simply setting aside money and then carrying on, or objecting to the fact that a fine is unusually expensive. Then they're not framing the regulations in the right way.

Yes, but this is not what this accounting line "reveals".

Say you find rot in your roof, so you immediately set aside $X to pay for a roof replacement, since you now know that soon this cost will be incurred. Doing says nothing about your stance on preventative maintenance. This is similar, it's just accounting. They reserved money for the fine when the complaint was lodged since they knew they likely were going to incur some cost.

I agree but generally companies are obligated to form provisions (set-aside money) for liabilities payable in the future. In some legislations (don't know what applies to WhatsApp) a company might even have to save a certain percentage of earnings in a legal reserve.

If WhatsApp gains knowledge of an impending fine (exact amount might yet be unknown) that is to be paid at some point in the future, they have to earmark money to cover that liability.

They set aside the money after they were found in violation but before they found out the amount. It isn't like they set aside the money and then went and intentionally broke the law.

You can argue whether the violation was intentional or not, but setting aside money to pay a fine after you have been found guilty is not a signal that they intentionally broke the law.

Agreed, and I think most on this thread agree. The point is that accounting practices are not the smoking gun.

Isn't it at least part of the problem that data laws/regulations remain fuzzy and complex? I don't think it's surprising to see that companies don't fully comply with a law that was created in 2016.

Did you read the offense? They didn't provide "transparency of information".

You think there's some >$225M benefit not adding a few extra lines to the terms of service or adding another annoying prompt?

I'm afraid that's not how the real world works. It has never worked this way and it never will. If you want laws/regulations to "always be followed", you have to make the enforcement extremely effective and the penalty extremely harsh relative to the benefits gained. Most people in the west do not wish to live under such repressive systems.

As an aside, I think accounting for anticipated fines is required by the regulations. So at least they were following those regulations! Talk about irony, lol.

They are expecting to get penalties for their privacy violations. Why would you not hold this against them?

They set it aside after being informed of an investigation.