EU Offers Google Chance To Settle Prior To Anti-Trust Enquiry 119
Fluffeh writes "The EU has accused Google of abusing its dominant position in advertising to benefit its own advertising services at the expense of competitors. In a twist however, rather than initiating formal proceedings, the EU has given Google a chance to settle the whole matter without much fuss. They outlined four changes that Google can make that will put it firmly back in the good graces of the EU. Google has been given 'a matter of weeks' to propose remedies to the four issues — which all tie in with how search results are displayed, their format and their portability to other platforms. This matter has come before the EU based on complaints by a few small companies and Microsoft."
The four issues: Displaying results to their own services specially, use of user reviews from other sites in search results, Advertising "...agreements result in de facto exclusivity requiring them to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google," and concerns that Google is imposing "...contractual restrictions on software developers which prevent them from offering tools that allow the seamless transfer of search advertising campaigns across AdWords and other platforms..."
Re:EU vs Everybody (Score:3, Informative)
Did they do [any] investigations? (Score:4, Informative)
First, the EU begins their second assertion by not being sure. Are they serious? Emphasis is mine:
Our second concern relates to the way Google copies content from competing vertical search services and uses it in its own offerings. Google may be copying original material from the websites of its competitors such as user reviews and using that material on its own sites without their prior authorisation.
Then they base their next point on this unsubstantiated assertion...again, bold is mine.
In this way they are appropriating the benefits of the investments of competitors.
To make matters worse, they conflate the two issues to emphasize another point, this time focusing on the possibility. Again, emphasis mine.
We are worried that this could reduce competitors' incentives to invest in the creation of original content for the benefit of internet users. This practice may impact for instance travel sites or sites providing restaurant guides...
Here is the question:
Was any investigation done? Doesn't sound like it!
Re:EU vs Everybody (Score:2, Informative)
You are clearly unaware of the difference between European and English style law.
European law is purposive, which is all about "vibes". You don't get highly specific laws and binding precedent to tell you exactly what's right and wrong. But you do get principles and cases which illustrate how those principles should be applied.
To an Englishman or American, it might be seen to be no rule of law at all - surely it's too easy for a biased judge to re-interpret principles, particularly with pressure from the government of the day? But it's just different, and a purposive approach stops the all too common result of one powerful party putting all its resources into a strong case to set horrible precedent.
(The far greater danger in the ECJ and much of Europe is the lack of jury system. A fine is a punishment, not a remedy, and eligibility for punishment should only be decided by a jury.)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you kidding? They kicked Microsoft's ass and fined them almost 1.5 billion dollars -- even for Microsoft that's big. Since then they have this browser ballot screen and special Europe-only versions of Windows etc..
To Google, so far, they have written a letter.
Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)
There's no link because the point is bogus. https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/adwords/select/TCUSbilling.html [google.com]
Re:EU vs Everybody (Score:5, Informative)
I have a feeling that if it was a French or Danish firm, we wouldn't see half this amount of noise from the EU throne.
This old caveat again, the fact still remains that the biggest fine EU has handed out so far was against an European company(Siemens I think)
And well if I remember correctly Google is incorporated in Ireland(because of the low corporate tax) so I guess technically Google is an European company...
Considering the sort of actual real privacy rubbish that say Facebook, or Apple engage in, I'm perplexed why they don't hit the headlines as much.
I don't know that Apple or Facebook is considered large enough in a specific market to be covered by the antitrust legislation, that is possibly why. But the European Council is preparing legislation that forbids Facebook to sharing user information with advertisers etc, without the users express permission. The Council is apparently also investigating whether Facebook's facial recognition system is contradictory to EU privacy legislation.
Personally I think it's good that there is at least one Governmental organization that doesn't instantly roll over whenever big corps complain.
Re:Google (Score:4, Informative)
Another case in point is the exclusivity agreement in AdWords. If you want to use AdWords (and you often have to because it's the prominent player and they also own Doubleclick since long time ago), you cannot run your ads on competitors services. It is prohibited in the terms. That is just monopoly abuse.
There is no such clause in the AdWords terms of service or in the guidelines. You can check it yourself:
https://adwords.google.com/select/tsandcsfinder [google.com]
http://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/bin/static.py?hl=en&guide=1316546&page=guide.cs&rd=2 [google.com]
I've been advertising on AdWords for 10 years.. I have never seen such a policy, or heard of such a policy with regards to AdWords.
AdSense does have that policy. IE: if you place google ads on your website, you cannot place bing ads on your website also.
ADSENSE != ADWORDS.