Good point. So ..... If an idiotic law like this is a "sure popularity winner", what does that say about the political system which makes that kind of idiotic law a "sure popularity winner? Maybe we should start questioning whether "one person, one vote" is really the best we can do?

Cameras might bring about better behavior for a while, so I voted for it, but I see at least 2 problems: 1) The Supreme Court of the United States recently gave police (plus the cities/counties/states that employ them) almost complete immunity for anything bad police did on the job, even if it was illegal and "egregious"; and, 2) All those extra cameras would also increase the level of surveillance on the rest of us. I still think it's a good idea, but hopefully the visual evidence of some of the more egregious behavior piling up would lead to some changes in the law, and less protection for cops behaving badly. Final note: I don't care whether I see cops going to the bathroom or not. But for the more squeamish, in any public use of the recordings, the sections of the frame showing private parts or private bodily functions could be blurred out. Just like they do in some places now with guns, ciggies and boobies.

Actually, I think what Amazon and Google are doing now is called "Predatory Pricing" -- selling something below cost for the purpose of destroying competitors. It's a monopoly kind of violation of federal law, AFAIK, and it's what the US is constantly accusing China of doing. Any country that subsidizes local products gets complaints from other countries to the WTC and threats of trade sanctions. The other countries don't want to have to match prices with subsidized products, or have their producers compete against producers in other countries that receive govt subsidies. It's called "unfair trade". Heck, the Thai government (and other govts) are even getting heat for subsidizing the crops of their own rice farmers. The govts are buying the crops above market cost, and are being blocked (by some countries) from reselling it on the open market because their internal subsidies are deemed anti-competitive. But who's going to launch an antitrust suit against Amazon or Google. Look how successful the US was last time they tried one against Microsoft. Hope this is helpful.

There's something missing to this OP story. Truth is a defense to slander or libel in the US. Unless the law is different in France, if the writer was telling the truth and not using his publication to maliciously and/or unfairly damage the restaurant, the writer should have been protected by privilege. That's if French law is similar to US/British law. I'm guessing it is and there is more to the story. If the writer went beyond expressing his/her opinions and/or made up things in his/her review that were not true, then he/she would be liable for damages. Do a little googling if you are interested. I'll bet there's more to this story.

Mall of America in Bloomington, MN, USA is around 1KM by 1/2 KM or around 400,000 sq meters, all covered and climate controlled. It includes 500+ stores, 7 nightclubs, 14 movie theatres, amusement rides for children, ice skating (?), and it employs around 12,000 people. It opened in 1992, and so far, doesn't seem to have become "dystopian" or caused the kinds of problems forecast in these comments for a similar mall in Dubai. Maybe everybody needs to take a deep breath and think this one through a little more?