Phil Mattera

Making America Underinsured Again

Health insurance policy was not a major topic during a presidential campaign dominated by talk of immigration, inflation, reproductive rights, and threats to democracy. The issue’s main appearance was during the September debate, when Trump made his much-ridiculed remark about having “concepts of a plan” to replace the Affordable Care Act.

Now it turns out that Republicans have chosen healthcare as one of their priority issues as they prepare to assume full control of Congress. The Washington Post reports that GOP lawmakers and Trump advisers are discussing significant cuts in Medicaid—both the traditional part of the program designed to provide coverage for those in poverty as well as the expansion to middle income families that made up part of Obamacare.

This would serve several purposes. First, the purported savings would make it easier to gain support for an extension of the 2017 tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of next year. Extending the giant giveaways to corporations and the wealthy would add an estimated $4 trillion to the national debt. Offsetting some of that with Medicaid reductions would allow Republicans to depict themselves as fiscally responsible.

It would also fit into the campaign being spearheaded by Elon Musk to give the impression that the new administration is going to do something about government waste.

There is no indication, however, that either Musk or Congressional Republicans intend to target the real culprits behind any wasteful spending in the Medicaid system: improper and fraudulent billing by healthcare providers and the inflated prices of prescription drugs.

Instead, the crusade against Medicaid will apparently focus on the phony issue of work requirements. This is the same scheme used by conservatives for decades to undermine safety net programs: make exaggerated claims about abuse and use this to justify complicated new eligibility rules that are designed to eject large numbers of beneficiaries. In the case of Medicaid, this will be coupled with cuts in the subsidies that make premiums more affordable for those receiving coverage through the ACA exchanges. Millions of people would have to drop out of their plans.

Reducing government costs for traditional Medicaid and ACA subsidies is just one part of the Republican strategy. The other aim is to push people from government programs entirely and place them at the mercy of the private insurance marketplace.

Trump’s concept of a plan is not entirely fiction. He and other Republicans do have an alternative to Obamacare: junk insurance. Their idea is to replace the decent coverage mandated by the ACA with bare-bones policies that are inexpensive but which provide little in the way of actual financial protection.

This is nothing new. Starting in the 1990s, large insurers such as Aetna, now owned by CVS, began selling such policies to low-income individuals who did not get employer coverage and could not qualify for Medicaid. These policies had low premiums but sky-high deductibles and numerous exclusions. In cases of a serious accident or illness, they were all but worthless. The ACA curbed this predatory market by establishing a set of essential benefits that most plans would have to include.

During the first Trump administration, Congressional Republicans repeatedly sought to abolish or cripple the ACA and allow junk insurance to return. They now seem poised to work with Trump 2.0 to try it again.

—————

I’ve just joined Bluesky. Feel free to follow me there:
https://bsky.app/profile/philmattera.bsky.social

The New Swamp

During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump led his supporters to believe he would “drain the swamp” by ending the influence of special interests over government. This time around, he did not bother to make such a vow. In fact, Trump himself can be seen as the ultimate special interest: his entire campaign was largely motivated by the desire to make his legal entanglements disappear. And that is already beginning to happen.

A close second in the self-promotion department goes to Elon Musk, who shamelessly used his wealth to sway the election in Trump’s favor and ingratiate himself and his business interests with the new administration. He has already been rewarded by being named to co-lead a new entity called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will recommend ways to slash federal spending and regulation. Musk’s main aim may be to protect the hefty contracts and subsidies his space and electric vehicle businesses enjoy while eliminating those going to his competitors.

He could also target rules that his businesses have been charged with violating. For example, Tesla has been fined dozens of times by OSHA for workplace safety violations and is the subject of investigations about the safety of its autonomous driving systems. His SpaceX business has had disputes with agencies such as the EPA.

Musk’s co-head of DOGE is to be Vivek Ramaswamy, the one-time presidential candidate and anti-ESG crusader who is involved with business interests such as the pharmaceutical company Roivant Sciences, which also stands to benefit from a reordering of federal policies.

Corporate executives and billionaires have long sought to alter regulatory practices through their political influence. Musk and Ramaswamy are taking corporate capture to a new level by getting themselves installed in positions designed to decimate oversight—while continuing their private sector activities.

Trump’s cabinet picks are likely to include others with checkered business records and conflicts of interest. The president-elect is thus seeking to ram through the nominations by pressuring the Senate to allow him to make recess appointments that circumvent the confirmation process.

Key posts are also being handed to MAGA zealots whose main qualification is unquestioning loyalty to Trump. That applies to the selection of former Rep. Lee Zeldin to head the EPA. Zeldin once held relatively moderate positions on some environmental issues such as offshore drilling, but he has increasingly embraced pro-fossil-fuel views in recent years as he aligned himself with Trump.

Most troubling is the announcement by Trump that he will nominate Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general. Gaetz, regularly described as a firebrand and a political bomb-thrower, seems perfectly prepared to carry out Trump’s vow to purge the Justice Department of those who participated in the supposedly politicized investigations of him for seeking to overturn the 2020 election and for improperly retaining classified documents. Gaetz may also be looking for payback in relation to a DOJ investigation of him for sex trafficking, which did not lead to criminal charges but Gaetz is still the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation.

At the same time, Gaetz is likely to go along with Trump’s inclination to use the powers of the DOJ to prosecute his opponents, while possibly declining to pursue transgressions by Trump-friendly corporations and billionaires such as Musk.

It has been only a week since the election, but the second Trump Administration already seems poised to usher in a wave of self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and personal vendettas: the New Swamp.

Brazil Extracts Billions from Mining Giants

When multinational mining companies are implicated in disasters in the Global South they often get away with paying minimal amounts in compensation to the communities or workers involved. Brazil recently broke that pattern by negotiating a settlement worth over US$30 billion.

That amount will be paid out by mining giants BHP and Vale in connection with the 2015 Mariana disaster in which a tailings dam at the iron ore mine operated by their joint venture Samarco collapsed and unleashed a torrent of waste that killed 19 people and contaminated 400 miles of the Doce River.

Under the agreement, BHP and Vale, which have already been compelled to pay out about US$8 billion, will provide another US$23 billion over the next 20 years to affected communities and public authorities. The amounts cover water clean-up costs, health programs infrastructure repairs and improvements, and a flood response fund. Also included are funds for education, the needs of women, fishing, food security, and income support for vulnerable populations. The companies are, in effect, being compelled to finance a parallel social welfare system.

BHP and Vale both have histories of harmful impacts that extend well beyond the Mariana disaster. BHP, headquartered in Australia, took its current form as a result of the 2001 merger of the company previously known as Broken Hill Proprietary and Billiton, originally a Dutch company. It has been at the center of environmental controversies concerning its operations in countries such as Chile, Guatemala, India, and the United States. For example, in 2022 it was fined the equivalent of US$8 million by environmental authorities in Chile for damage caused by excessive water extraction in the Salar de Atacama salt flat.

Vale, headquartered in Brazil, was implicated in another even worse mining disaster in its home country. Three years after the Mariana incident, a tailings dam near Brumadinho in the state of Minas Gerais collapsed, releasing a mudflow that engulfed houses, farms and roads and killed more than 250 people, most of whom were company employees. The toxic deluge also destroyed 300 acres of native forest and polluted 200 miles of the Paraopeba River.

In 2021 Vale agreed to pay US$7 billion in compensation to the state government. It probably got off easy, given that evidence emerged suggesting that Vale executives had been warned about safety risks with the dam. In the wake of those revelations, Brazilian authorities brought homicide charges against the chief executive of the company, Fabio Schvartsman. Those charges were dismissed earlier this year, but relatives of the victims are seeking to have them reinstated.

Apart from the environmental penalties, Vale got in trouble with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for making false and misleading statements to investors about the safety of its dams. In 2023 the company had to pay US$55 million to settle the matter.

The substantial penalties being paid in Brazil by BHP and Vale will provide needed relief to the affected communities, yet it is unclear whether the amounts are enough to get corporations with annual revenues in the $40-50 billion range to fundamentally change their ways.

Military Contractors Return to Their Old Ways

In the 1980s and 1990s the big military contractors developed a reputation as some of the most corrupt major corporations in the United States. They were at the center of numerous scandals involving brazen overcharging in their dealings with the Pentagon, and they were often accused of providing defective equipment. Because the Defense Department was so dependent on them, these companies continued to be awarded lucrative contracts.

By the 2000s, the weapons makers were no longer in the spotlight as other industries such as the giant banks, Big Pharma, and the oil majors came to be viewed as the main corporate villains. After the arms companies got involved in arming the Ukrainian government to resist the 2022 Russian invasion, some ESG investors began to argue that the likes of Raytheon and Northrop Grumman should no longer be excluded from ethical portfolios.

A recent announcement by the Justice Department suggests that the military contractors have not changed their old ways. DOJ reported that Raytheon Company, now a subsidiary of a parent company known as RTX, is paying $950 million to resolve allegations in several categories.

First, it was accused of cheating the federal government by providing “false and fraudulent information to the DOD during contract negotiations concerning two contracts with the United States for the benefit of a foreign partner — one to purchase PATRIOT missile systems and the other to operate and maintain a radar system.” The deception caused the government to pay Raytheon $111 million more than it should have received. To settle this case, which is one of very few contract matters handled as a criminal offense, Raytheon paid a penalty of $147 million.

The second allegation involved additional instances in which the company provided “untruthful certified cost or pricing data when negotiating prices with the DOD for numerous government contracts and double billed on a weapons maintenance contract.” Raytheon paid a whopping $428 million to settle this civil action.

The third allegation involved bribes paid to a high-level official of the Qatari Air Force to obtain contracts. To resolve charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, paid a criminal fine of $230 million and other penalties. This and the other criminal charge were resolved through two deferred prosecution agreements, meaning that the company did not have to enter a guilty plea.

DOJ’s actions came less than two months after RTX paid $200 million to the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to resolve allegations of violating the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) in connection with unauthorized defense exports.

Raytheon is not the only military contractor that has been slipping back into corrupt practices. Earlier this year, Sikorsky Services, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, agreed to pay $70 million to resolve allegations it was involved in a scheme to overcharge the Navy for spare parts and materials needed to repair and maintain the primary aircraft used to train naval aviators. Also this year, Boeing was fined $51 million for violating export control laws in its dealings with countries such as China. Last year, a subsidiary of L3Harris Technologies agreed to pay $21.8 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting contract proposals in which the cost of certain parts was included twice.

Perhaps it is time to return the weapons companies to a prominent place in the corporate hall of shame.

Big Banks and Dirty Money

Toronto-Dominion has joined the dubious club of large companies that have paid a penalty of $1 billion or more in a single case of misconduct. It achieved that distinction with the recent slew of announcements by the U.S. Justice Department and several financial regulators that the book was being thrown at the Canadian bank’s U.S. subsidiary TD Bank for widespread failures in meeting its obligations to prevent the use of its operations for money laundering by criminals and tax evaders.

TD Bank was hit with $1.9 billion in criminal fines by the DOJ and more than a billion from the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It all came to $3.09 billion in penalties. Adding these to Toronto-Dominion’s previous cases documented in Violation Tracker raises the bank’s aggregate penalties in the U.S. to nearly $4 billion, far and away the highest total for any parent company headquartered in Canada.

Looking specifically at penalties for anti-money-laundering (AML) deficiencies, Toronto-Dominion is now at the top of the list in that category, overtaking Denmark’s Danske Bank, which has hit with $2 billion in criminal fines by the DOJ in 2022.

Other banks with the highest penalties for AML and related Bank Secrecy Act violations include: JPMorgan Chase ($811 million), HSBC ($665 million), U.S. Bancorp ($528 million), Deutsche Bank ($491 million), and Capital One ($390 million). The non-bank with the largest total is Western Union at $740 million.

AML violations are not limited to the United States. In the new Violation Tracker Global, which covers cases against large corporations in 45 countries (including the U.S.), AML is one of the most frequent offenses, with total penalties equal to more than $20 billion imposed by regulators and courts in three dozen countries.

The U.S. by far contributes the most ($15 billion) to that total. Other countries with the most AML penalties against large corporations include Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, each with between $1 billion and $2 billion. Next are Denmark and Sweden with totals between $500 million and $700 million.

Outside the United States, the largest individual AML cases include: a $916 million penalty in Australia against Westpac Banking Corporation; a $900 million penalty in the Netherlands against ING Bank; a $675 million penalty in Denmark against Danske Bank; a $575 million penalty in the Netherlands against ABN AMRO; a $529 million penalty in Australia against Commonwealth Bank; a $397 million penalty in Sweden against Swedbank; and a $350 million penalty against NatWest in the United Kingdom.

Toronto-Dominion had one AML penalty outside the U.S.—a penalty equal to less than $7 million in its home country of Canada.

These figures suggest that large banks everywhere have a problem complying with AML restrictions. That is probably because doing business with clients flush with dubious cash is simply too lucrative for them to resist. Large penalties imposed in the U.S. and a few other countries may have some deterrent effect, but regulators and prosecutors need to find more effective forms of punishment.

Note: The new TD Bank cases will be added to Violation Tracker and Violation Tracker Global as part of updates that are being prepared.

Violation Tracker Goes Global

Violation Tracker Global has arrived. The new database, covering corporate crime and misconduct in 45 countries, is free to search at violationtrackerglobal.org.

VT Global is structured much like the U.S. and UK versions of Violation Tracker, but with an important difference: it focuses exclusively on cases linked to a universe of 1,600 large multinational corporations and their subsidiaries in the period since 2010. The database contains more than 50,000 penalties imposed on those companies by 700 regulatory agencies and other government bodies, including subsets of the data from the U.S. and the UK Trackers. Other countries covered are from both the Global North (such as Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and 17 members of the European Union) and the Global South (such as Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and India). More countries will be added in the future.

The cases in Violation Tracker Global are divided into eight broad offense groups: Competition/Antitrust, Consumer Protection, Employment, Environment, Financial, Government Contracting, Healthcare, and Safety. Each entry is also tagged with one of about 100 more specific offense categories, such as privacy/data protection violations, bribery, money laundering, and workplace safety. Penalties are shown both in the original currency and the U.S. dollar equivalent at the time of the penalty announcement.

Because of agency disclosure limitations, Violation Tracker Global does not have data in every category for all 45 countries. Particularly frustrating is the fact that regulators in numerous countries, including most of those in the European Union, do not make detailed enforcement information available in two categories: environmental and labor standards. Many of these same countries post extensive data on cases in categories such as banking, securities, and competition/antitrust. Where major cases have become public despite their absence from agency websites, we have created entries using reliable secondary sources.

This unevenness in disclosure practices is part of the reason financial institutions appear so prominently in Violation Tracker Global. The nearly 300 banks, insurance companies, and asset managers included in the database account for more than 40 percent of the total penalties, far more than any other sector. Seven of the 10 parent companies with the largest penalty totals are banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, UBS, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank.

Banks are also the biggest repeat offenders. Looking only at penalties of $1 million or more, the parents with the most cases of that size are UBS (114), Bank of America (111), JPMorgan Chase (101), and Citigroup (98). Two banks, HSBC and Citigroup, have been penalized in more countries than any other parent companies.

Plenty of corporations other than banks have substantial penalty totals. These include Volkswagen ($30 billion), BP ($26 billion), and Apple ($19 billion). Overall, 95 parent companies have received $1 billion or more in cumulative penalties since 2010.

Violation Tracker Global is a work in progress. Going forward, my colleagues and I will add information from more countries and seek to fill gaps in the online data through methods such as open records requests. In some countries, however, strict privacy rules will prevent us from obtaining full data. The data we have assembled so far makes it clear that illegality on the part of giant corporations is a worldwide phenomenon.

We hope Violation Tracker Global will be a useful tool for those promoting corporate accountability everywhere.

The Corporate Lawbreakers Involved in the Port Labor Dispute

The decision by the International Longshoremen’s Association to strike ports on the East and Gulf Coasts has prompted numerous media outlets to produce unflattering stories about union president Harold Daggett and what is depicted as his lavish lifestyle.

I have not seen much reporting on the ILA’s adversaries—the corporate members of the employer group known as the United States Maritime Alliance. The group’s website lists about 40 members, among which are some of the largest multinational shipping corporations and terminal operators in the world.

These companies have become more familiar to me as I have been gathering data for the new Violation Tracker Global database, which my colleagues and I will release soon. USMA members show up frequently in data from regulatory agencies in various countries. Here is a preview of what Violation Tracker Global will reveal about these shippers.

One of the USMA members is an American subsidiary of Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen Group. Since 2010, units of the shipping company have racked up regulatory penalties equal to more than US$440 million. Most of these were for anti-competitive practices. The biggest case was a $256 million penalty imposed by the European Commission in 2018 for participating in an illegal cartel controlling the market for vehicle shipping. Wallenius Wilhelmsen has also been fined in Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and the United States.

Another USMA member is a unit of Japan’s Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, known as K Line. Since 2010, K Line has been penalized more than $240 million for similar anti-competitive practices. The largest case was a $67 million criminal fine imposed by the U.S. Justice Department for participation in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids for shipping services for roll-on, roll-off cargo, such as cars and trucks. K Line has also been fined in Australia, Canada, Chile, China, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, and South Korea.

One of the biggest USMA members is Denmark’s Maersk, which participates directly and through its subsidiaries APM Terminals and Hamburg Sud. Since 2010, Maersk and all its subsidiaries have racked up about $45 million in penalties. The largest portion of that was a 2012 U.S. case in which Maersk Line Limited had to pay the federal government $31.9 million to resolve allegations that it submitted false claims in connection with contracts to transport cargo in shipping containers to support U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among other things, Maersk units were fined by Russian authorities for anti-competitive practices and by British authorities for an offshore oil spill.

Also on the membership list is CSAV, a Chilean shipping company whose fines in Violation Tracker Global amount to $25 million. Those include competition cases brought by the European Commission and in China, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, and the United States. France’s CMA CGA has total fines of just under $25 million. It was also fined by the European Commission and in Brazil, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Opponents of the ILA are arguing that the union’s fight against automation will impede efficiency and lead to higher shipping costs. Yet, as the information in Violation Tracker Global will show, the shippers themselves have already been boosting costs through price-fixing and other anti-competitive practices across their global operations.

Violation Tracker Global will be available starting on October 8 at:
https://violationtrackerglobal.goodjobsfirst.org/

Challenging Corporate Greenwashing

Large corporations like to tout their environmental initiatives. The problem is that their claims are often exaggerated, misleading or completely unfounded. And rarely are they called to account for their deception.

Recently, there have been two exceptions to the rule, involving the petroleum industry, which has long been one of the most brazen practitioners of greenwashing. California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the filing of a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, alleging that it engaged in what the AG called “a decades-long campaign of deception that caused and exacerbated the global plastics pollution crisis.”

Bonta accused Exxon Mobil, a leading producer of the polymers used to produce single-use plastics, of employing “misleading public statements and slick marketing” to promote the idea that recycling is an adequate way to deal with the plastics pollution crisis.

The lawsuit, which seeks to get Exxon Mobil to cease making misleading statements and pay damages, bears a resemblance to previous actions against the corporation for its long history of denying the reality of the climate crisis and the major role the oil industry has played in exacerbating global warming.

Over in South Africa, another oil giant, France’s TotalEnergies, was recently found to have made misleading statements about its commitment to sustainable development. The Advertising Regulatory Board, acting on a complaint brought by the environmental group Fossil Free South Africa, based its ruling on the simple fact that the petroleum company’s core business is antithetical to sustainability.

The advertising board could also have looked at the environmental record of TotalEnergies. As shown in Violation Tracker, the company has paid more than $60 million in environmental penalties in the United States. It also paid $15 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from federal and Indian leases. And it paid nearly $400 million to settle foreign bribery allegations.

As will soon be shown in Violation Tracker Global, TotalEnergies has also had regulatory challenges in other countries. For example, in 2010 a French appeals court upheld a 200 million euro judgment against the company in connection with a large oil spill by the tanker Erika off the coast of Brittany.

Of course, Exxon Mobil also has a checkered compliance record. Violation Tracker records more than $2 billion in environmental penalties in the U.S since 2000. That total would have been considerably larger if the Supreme Court had not slashed a multi-billion-dollar damage award stemming from the giant oil spill by the company’s Valdez supertanker off the coast of Alaska. Violation Tracker Global will contain $3 million in environmental penalties in other countries, especially Canada.

Supreme Court rulings such as the Citizens United case emboldened corporations to assert their free speech rights. Yet when that speech denies scientific reality and contributes to environmental devastation, society needs to respond. California’s lawsuit will not solve the plastics crisis, but it will help to make the case that Exxon Mobil is part of the problem rather than the solution.

Note: Violation Tracker Global will be launched in October

Cigna SLAPPs the FTC

Pharmaceutical companies, the big pharmacy chains and the middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, have been taking pains to blame one another for the high cost of prescription drugs. It is not unusual for business groups with conflicting positions to engage in this sort of finger-pointing, but now a major PBM is attacking a federal regulatory agency for criticizing its practices.

In a highly unusual and objectionable step, Cigna, parent of PBM Express Scripts, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission, seeking to force the agency to retract a recent interim report depicting PBMs as “powerful middlemen inflating drug costs and squeezing main street pharmacies.”

The FTC report points out that the market for PBM services has become highly concentrated, and the largest PBMs are now owned by the largest health insurers (as in Cigna’s ownership of Express Scripts) or pharmacy chains (CVS control of Caremark). “As a result of this high degree of consolidation and vertical integration,” the report states, “the leading PBMs can now exercise significant power over Americans’ access to drugs and the prices they pay.”

Cigna is certainly within its rights to disagree with and criticize the report, as the company did in a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal. Yet Cigna did more than that. Its lawsuit, filed in federal court in Missouri, accuses the FTC of defamation and of violating the company’s due process rights. It seeks to have the report expunged from the FTC website along with “any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.”

Although the complaint does not explicitly ask for monetary damages, the action bears a close resemblance to the SLAPP suits filed by corporations seeking to silence their critics by causing them severe financial harm. This kind of tactic is seen, for example, in the lawsuit being pursued against Greenpeace by the pipeline company Energy Transfer. Like the SLAPP suits brought against NGOs, the Cigna action seems designed to intimidate—both the FTC and by extension its other critics.

Cigna’s claim it has been defamed ignores the fact that the company’s track record is hardly unblemished. Violation Tracker contains more than 200 entries for Cigna and its subsidiaries, with total penalties of $746 million.

Express Scripts accounts for about $30 million of that total, stemming from cases such as a $3.2 million settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General in 2022 to resolve allegations the company failed to follow prescription pricing procedures designed to keep costs down and prevent overcharges in the state’s workers compensation insurance system.

Accredo, a specialty pharmacy owned by Express Scripts, paid $60 million in 2015 to resolve federal allegations that it received illegal kickbacks, in the form of patient referrals and other benefits, from the pharmaceutical company Novartis in exchange for promoting refills for its drug Exjade.

It is unacceptable for Cigna, or any other company, to seek to muzzle a federal regulator through the use of the legal system. Hopefully, the court will see the danger of this lawsuit and dismiss it promptly.

Apple Loses Its Sweet Irish Tax Deal

When governments in the United States decide to give special tax breaks to large corporations, the sky is the limit and no one can challenge that largesse. As Apple just learned to the tune of about $14 billion, things are different in the European Union.

The EU is much stricter about the tax benefits and other forms of financial assistance that can be given to companies. What is called state aid is not banned entirely, but it is supposed to be used only when it is “exceptionally justified” and does not distort competition.

Moreover, the European Commission can bring legal action when it believes that a member state has awarded state aid improperly, with the remedy being that the company has to give back the money.

Some state and local governments in the U.S. use procedures know as clawbacks to recover economic development assistance from companies that fail to meet job-creation or other promises they made to receive aid. The European Commission cases, by contrast, are not related to company performance but are instead based on an argument that the aid was illegitimate to begin with.

EU member states are supposed to get prior approval for state aid awards. Yet they often adopt practices, especially with regard to taxes, that the Commission may later decide constitute improper aid. That is what happened with Apple, which had received special rulings in Ireland dating back to the early 1990s that allowed it to avoid paying billions of euros in taxes in that country. Those rulings allowed two Irish subsidiaries of Apple that held valuable intellectual property licenses to exclude profits linked to those licenses from their taxable income in Ireland.

In 2016 the Commission challenged that arrangement and ordered Ireland to recover the aid. At the behest of both Apple and the Irish government, a lower court rescinded that order in 2020. The EU’s highest legal authority, the Court of Justice, just ruled the other way and put Apple on the hook for about 13 billion euros.

Legal disputes over state aid are common in the EU. Since 1999 the Commission has brought more than 300 challenges and forced companies to repay billions of euros. Yet it is also common for deep-pocketed corporations to appeal those decisions—and often they succeed. Amazon, for example, successfully appealed a ruling by the Commission against its tax deal with Luxembourg.

From what I can tell, the largest case prior to Apple in which a Commission challenge survived appeals was one in which the electric utility EDF had to pay back over 1 billion euros to the French government. When the Commission announced its action in 2015, the EU’s top competition regulator, Margrethe Vestager, was quoted as saying: “Whether private or public, large or small, any undertaking operating in the Single Market must pay its fair share of corporation tax. The Commission’s investigation confirmed that EDF received an individual, unjustified tax exemption which gave it an advantage to the detriment of its competitors, in breach of EU State aid rules.”

The Apple ruling reinforces the idea that special tax breaks are harmful both to competition and to fair taxation. We are a long way from that realization in the U.S., where tax deals and other incentives are widely treated as corporate entitlements.

Note: The Apple and EDF cases, along with much more, will be included in the forthcoming Violation Tracker Global.