Waiting for it to happen isn’t necessary for it to be priced in. In many cases companies probably anticipate these costs like any other. If you do something that risks a fine it’s because you think the reward is worth it. In cases where there is a fine, the goal is the same as any other expense: to pass costs onto either consumers or employees in order to protect shareholders. In cases where a penalty is surprising and/or severe, they might not be able to fully pass on costs to those people, profitability suffers, and the shareholders pay via investment losses or at least reduced gains. Corporate leadership could get forced out if they piss off shareholders too much, otherwise the only cost for them to pay is reduced pay from equity based compensation or performance bonuses…and only if the fines are in excess of the gains made by breaking the law in the first place.

That’s what I don’t understand about passing on costs to customers: The idea that a company can just pass additional costs on to the customer implies that the market is willing to bear that passed-on cost. But if the market is already willing to bear it, why wouldn’t the company just charge more today, regardless of whether they have additional costs?