EU Poised To Fine Google More Than $1 Billion in Antitrust Case (marketwatch.com) 102
Google is braced for a fine of potentially more than 1bn euro ($1.18 billion) as Brussels prepares to make the first of three antitrust decisions on the search group's practices, the first sanction by a leading competition regulator on the way it operates. From a report: The penalty, expected to be announced in the coming weeks, could exceed the record 1.1 billion euro bill slapped on Intel, in 2009 for anti-competitive behavior in the computer-chip market, the two people told The Times. The European Commission's antitrust body declined to comment to MarketWatch on the FT report, but referred to the latest steps taken in the case against Google. In July last year, the commission reiterated its conclusion that the search giant had "abused its dominant position by systematically favoring its comparison shopping service in its search result pages." Google and its parent company Alphabet were then given 10 weeks to respond to the findings. Reuters reported last month that Google had attempted to settle the dispute with the EU three times in the last six years, but the sides had failed to reach a compromise.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is really just the Germans getting even for WW2.
No, the bureaucrats are throwing a tantrum over Britain's exit, and are hoping to make back some of the money they were milking the U.K. for.
right target, wrong reason. (Score:2, Interesting)
systematically favoring its comparison shopping service in its search result pages.
I have problems with Google, but .... fining them for favoring its own shopping service? Come on. It's their search engine, and their shopping service, and I don't like it and don't use it. Easy enough.
What they need to be fined for is collecting data on people who are NOT their customers and turning the entire web not to mention email into a giant surveillance network with Google trackers embedded everywhere. Most people have no idea how to avoid the Google Big Data Machine even if they are trying to a
Re:right target, wrong reason. (Score:5, Informative)
I have problems with Google, but .... fining them for favoring its own shopping service?
Usually the argument is that if you are legally considered a monopoly (which Google probably is under EU law) then it is illegal for you to use your monopoly position in that area to promote or favor your other products or business areas. It's essentially the same thing that Microsoft ran afoul of with IE that led to requirements by the EU that Windows users would be able to select which browser they wanted to use when installing Windows. Whether or not you agree with that law, it is still the law that companies are required to abide by.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who fire up IE, which then starts up with Google as the home page, type the url of the site they want to visit in the search engine (for instance amazon.com), press enter and then click the first link that Google shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is browser software different from the calculator or the character map or anything else?
It's not. Part of the anti-trust is that someone needs to actually bring a case to the courts about it. The Association for Crappy and Useless Calculator Apps wasn't interested in spending money on the case.
Re: (Score:2)
"If I can get online to the internet and I don't have a browser how can I possibly download an alternative browser?"
Back when I worked for an ISP, the instructions for new customers included how to use FTP to get Netscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:right target, wrong reason. (Score:4, Informative)
It's the abuse of a dominant position in a field in an attempt to gain a dominant position in another field.
Think Microsoft trying to push IE and IIS onto everyone and getting away with it because they are the dominant OS. This is anti-competitive and anti-capitalist. The capitalist model requires competition to ensure better product eliminate inferior ones. Propping up a mediocre product with a dominant market position in another market to make it that way competitive to a superior product should go against everything any liberal or capitalist minded person stands for.
Re: (Score:2)
takes next to no time to switch your search engine away from Google. That's maybe 8 seconds and a few mouse clicks -> done.
There is no incentive for computer users to switch to another search engine, because they are not the ones suffering from Google's abuse of dominance. It's the competing companies that suffer, and they can't tell their potential customers to use a different search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Google does not have a monopoly, there are several very capabl
Re: (Score:2)
Google does not have a monopoly, there are several very capable alternatives.
Google has over 90% market share in Europe, which is a defacto monopoly. And according to EU law, a company with such a dominant position may not abuse that in order to gain market share in other areas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply because they have the best search engine. People are free to use whichever search engine they want, and there is no pain in switching except for the inferior results you will receive from other search engines. This isn't the same as a browser or OS where they are somehow locking you into the search engine. Using a different search engine is extremely simple. If you could force people to use a search engine then MS would have the dominant position with Bing. But people are simply choosing th
Re: (Score:3)
Read a few messages up this thread: the problem is not for the users. The problem is for Google's competitors on other services, who don't get to play on a level playing field because Google is promoting their own services over theirs.
For instance, if I search for 'maps' on Google here on a European google server, I don't see a result for 'bing maps' on the first couple of pages. Based on those results, I wouldn't even know bing maps existed. On the other hand, google maps is returned as the first and seco
Re: (Score:2)
You do? I didn't even know that option exists.
I think it's time to fine GM and Toyota. You should sue.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Google's job to advertise for Bing.
Google's job is to index the web, and return relevant search results based on a fair algorithm. Hiding bing maps on the bottom of the 9th page (I finally found it), is not doing its job.
This is akin to USA Today complaining that the New York Times only advertises their own paper.
That's not the issue. The problem is not Google advertising their own search engine. The problem is abusing their dominant search engine to promote other business interests they own.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the competing companies that suffer
They are more than welcome to start up their own competing search engine, then.
In fact, many people would probably welcome that.
Re: (Score:2)
They are more than welcome to start up their own competing search engine, then.
So, if Google buys up a hotel chain, and hides search results from competing hotels, the nice little family owned hotel here in town needs to make their own global search engine ? That's your answer ?
Re: (Score:2)
The accumulation of capital is, funny enough, an attempt to eliminate the market regulations that capitalism provides.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a wild guess who'll be next on the EU chopping block. They're already being minced for their telemetry, more fuel is only going to make the cake sweeter.
Re: (Score:2)
That's our post-capitalist model. In a truly, fully capitalist society, you can't even make a profit anymore because the market would not allow it.
We'er not in a capitalist society, though. Capitalism is much like communism. A nice idea, but it's never been fully realized, only flawed versions ever existed. The flaws in real existing capitalism are just less damning to the system.
Re: The EU loves kangaroo courts (Score:1)
The EU is a joke to everyone not in the EU. The sooner that whole thing implodes, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
They modded you down because you made a stupid remark.
Re:The EU loves kangaroo courts (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is a US company. The EU is going after them solely because of this fact, while domestic firms are given carte blanche
Absolutely true. Just look at the list of companies that have had antitrust rulings against them. Daimler, DAF, Saint-Gobain, Philips, Renault, Iveco, Siemens, Deutsche Bank.... None of these companies would have been ruled against if they were from the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
I have problems with Google, but .... fining them for favoring its own shopping service? Come on. It's their search engine, and their shopping service, and I don't like it and don't use it
Not only this but two stories older is Amazon patenting using their store wifi to outright block people from even checking someone else's shopping service. Are they not paying attention to the Google case or what?
Re: (Score:1)
Unintentended Consequences (Score:1)
Is the EU trying to make the #1 search for the term "EU" return the phrase "money grubbing whores?" Because this is how you end up with "money grubbing whores" as the #1 result when you search for "EU."
Just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
In Google search? You don't say...
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has to use MS, the alternative is actually free. You also don't have to use IE, every single alternative is free AND has no drawback (unlike Linux, where you could at least argue that software for Windows doesn't run easily on it).
So what's different with Google again?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has to use MS, the alternative is actually free. You also don't have to use IE, every single alternative is free AND has no drawback
Wrong on both counts. People have to use MS to interoperate with other people who use MS. This sometimes still includes governments. And there is a drawback to non-IE browsers, or at least there was: ActiveX support, which was needed for many sites to function. And that's a problem which was deliberately created by Microsoft, by abusing their market position.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the drawback of not using Google so the Google-login doesn't work? There are quite some advantages in convenience if you stay in the "Google Family".
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case, no one has to use Google.
But it is the dominant search engine, and that's what the EU uses as a criterium.
Re: (Score:2)
That means they are happy with the deal, including the results Google delivers, including promoting other Google services.
How is the user supposed to know that a company he is not aware of, is not returned in the search results ?
Another EU money grab (Score:1)
Hey which big company has money that we can take...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU did not choose that Google would violate antitrust laws. Google did.
Re: (Score:2)
Google needs better lawyers (Score:3)
If Google had better lawyers, maybe their attempt to drag this out without resolution would have extended past ten years rather than a mere six.
Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Isn't making Google pay for this traffic a violation of Net Neutrality?
No judge, no jury (Score:3, Insightful)
Why comment, if you don't need to convince anyone — neither beyond reasonable doubt nor even on the preponderance of evidence?
not all of Google (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's technically correct. Google is the search company, the parent is Alphabet (one of the stupidest corporate names ever). The suit is against Google, not Alphabet.
Another solution (Score:3)
No settlement possible (Score:2)
The Apple case in Ireland and this case as well should indicate to any firm that dealing with the EU, they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.
You're a success? Clearly, you should be punished for that.
You made a deal with a nominally-sovereign EU government? Too bad! It's not the government's fault, it's yours - please pay us $13 billion.
Google: you've developed more or less an entire search/commerce ecosystem that none of the Euro-chauvinist competitors can beat?
Re:No settlement possible (Score:5, Informative)
any firm that dealing with the EU, they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.
Only if they choose to break the law.
Re:No settlement possible (Score:5, Insightful)
they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.
Are you trying to say they should be fined 50€ instead?.
Do you know what the purpose of a fine is? It is to dissuade such behaviour. If the fine is not directly proportional to the size of their wallet, they either get crushed if it's too high, or don't care at all and continue if it's too small.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes the EU different from American politics is that the EU is there for the people. So companies can not easily buy laws that make them get away with screwing their customers by bribing congresspeople like in the US. This means that if a company breaks EU law they are likely to be sued and fined, which is great for the European people because they get good products and service for fair prices.
Outrageous (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft gets fined a few hundred million dollars for causing real, irreparable damage to a critical world industry for decades, but Google gets fined over a billion dollars because some people couldn't be bothered to scroll down a bit? This is mind-boggling stupidity!
Use a different search engine (Score:1)