How tech corporations break all imaginable rules and laws

Technology companies have long taken a leading position in the modern world: their innovations determine not only the economy, but also public relations. The unparalleled impact of digital giants extends far beyond the tech industry, to communications, education and even politics. However, as numerous studies show, success and influence often come with the temptation to circumvent or distort the rules. An alarming trend emerges: when corporate representatives publicly apologize, they may genuinely regret mistakes, but those regrets too often stem from fear of loss of profits rather than moral or social considerations.

On the one hand, we are told that the largest IT companies are working for the benefit of progress. On the other hand, high-profile corporate scandals with laundering of user data, tax evasion and anti-competitive practices cast doubt on the sincerity of “good intentions”. According to Statista, the combined capitalization of large technology corporations is measured in trillions of dollars, and these companies have the resources to not only promote their own products, but also to influence the legislation governing their activities.


Main part

1. Questionable data collection practices
One of the most discussed topics in recent decades has been the aggressive use of personal data. While in the early days of the Internet, users looked at digital opportunities with excitement, today we are alarmed to learn about the constant collection and analysis of our online activities, from shopping habits to geolocation. According to researchers at Harvard University, large IT companies often resort to legal loopholes that allow you to expand access to personal information without adequately informing users.

What are the consequences? The data obtained are often used not only for targeted advertising, but also to influence public sentiment. It is known that some corporations have created algorithms that can automatically analyze psychological profiles of users, adapting to emotional vulnerabilities. Formally, this “helps improve service,” but is actually aimed at maximizing sales and controlling audience behavior. And when such schemes are suddenly revealed, corporate press services are forced to apologize on social networks, while maintaining silence about the true causes of risk: customer outrage can significantly reduce revenue and hit reputation.




2. Invisible Violations of Antimonopoly Law
Another area where tech corporations stumble across legal and ethical boundaries is competition. The scale of the largest of them is so huge that they practically set the global agenda in the field of development, advertising and introduction of new technologies. The result is a clear imbalance: smaller companies find it difficult to compete and consumers have limited choice.

Tech giants often fund their own lobbying groups, which effectively promote the company’s interests in government bodies, influencing the passage of key bills. According to the Harvard Business Review, the amount spent on lobbying exceeds the budget of some ministries in developing countries. User confidence is undermined when corporations sell the idea of “freedom of innovation” when they create a kind of technological monopoly, putting pressure on competitors.

When such actions become the subject of litigation, companies tend to “make concessions”: most often this is expressed in the payment of large fines, which, ironically, have little effect on the long-term profitability of a super-large business. Formally, they “admit” mistakes, but they regret the loss of revenue and reputation.


3. "Charity" under the PR sign
Large corporations, including technology, are actively involved in philanthropic projects. They donate money to education, support social programs and fight climate change. However, more and more often, such charity is becoming an element of marketing strategy. The goal is to win the “race of virtue”: the louder and more noticeable the action, the more attractive the brand looks.

Do business companies really help solve social problems or use these initiatives to distract attention from their own violations? Contradictions become apparent when philanthropists encourage the creation of environmental start-ups while investing in environmentally damaging projects. Or when they claim to be “transforming education,” but indiscriminately collect student and faculty data. In this case, the key question is motive. If apologies and philanthropy arise only as a way to maintain a positive image, then the public good pales before the main goal: to retain and multiply profits.




4. The fine line between innovation and impunity
Analyzing the phenomenon of corporate violations, it is worth remembering their close connection with progress. Technology is where innovation happens the fastest. New products and services really make life easier, increase general information literacy, and even contribute to the development of medicine or education. But any mechanism of a market economy is not perfect. The more significant the contribution of a corporation to vital industries, the more difficult it is for the state or public structures to impose strict regulations.

The result is a paradox: the corporations whose solutions and products we actively use are in fact in the unique position of being “too big to punish” – because restrictive measures can slow innovation or lead to massive social upheaval if people depend on these services.


5. Genuine remorse or another step in the PR campaign?
Cases of public apology by top managers are increasingly becoming flashy news for the media: companies admit “mistakes”, promise to “fix”, create “ethical committees” and generously give out promises to change corporate policy. In reality, however, change is often cosmetic until the scale of abuse or potential financial loss reaches a critical level.

An important sign of genuine regret is a willingness to implement systemic change, even if it hurts short-term profits. If the sole purpose of an apology is to restore trust in order to maintain sales and prevent leakage of advertisers, such “self-criticism” carries no real value.


Conclusion
Technology corporations have become such an integral part of our daily lives that attempts to regulate them are faced with enormous difficulties – economic, political and social. Formally, they are obliged to adhere to the laws, but real practice shows that sometimes these giants use their power to bypass the rules and influence the legislation in their favor. When they are tried to be held accountable, most often we see a public apology, where the corporation "regrets" only reputational losses and falling revenues.

Such a controversial situation does not mean that technological progress must be halted. Rather, society needs more transparent and tighter regulations to curb the appetites of the biggest business players. As users of digital services, citizens themselves can develop a critical view of the advertising of “breakthrough innovations” and realize the cost of “free” services.

Ultimately, it is not only the process of developing state-of-the-art products that matters, but also how they are morally and legally tested. If tech corporations are serious about building public trust, they will have to rethink their culture, from lobbying and data collection to how they interact with competitors. When repentance changes the very structure of corporate strategy, then apologies cease to be formalities for profit and turn into a sincere desire to correct past mistakes and cooperate with society for the benefit of the common future.