Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses EU The Almighty Buck The Courts

EU Judge Raises Prospect of Increasing Multibillion Fine Against Google (reuters.com) 86

Posted by BeauHD from the eye-catching dept.
Alphabet's appeal against a multibillion-dollar fine for alleged anticompetitive behavior by its Google unit risks backfiring after a European Union court floated the prospect of increasing the fine (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), rather than scrapping it. The Wall Street Journal reports: In a surprise twist Friday at the end of a three-day hearing, one of five judges on the panel said the EU's General Court has the power to increase the $2.6 billion fine, levied in 2017, if it finds that the sum was insufficient to deter the company from further anticompetitive behavior. "The fine of ~$2.6 billion was described as eye-catching, but it is a small amount of cash in your hands," Judge Colm Mac Eochaidh said in court. "Did that level of fine deter you from repeating your behavior?" he asked Google's counsel. Increasing a fine has only one precedent in the court's history, according to Mr. Mac Eochaidh, when German chemicals giant BASF SE was ordered to pay ~$58,000 in 2007 on top of an initial ~$38 million fine for participating in a chemicals cartel.

Christopher Thomas, a counsel for Google, dismissed the idea that the fine was warranted and said the company takes the entire antitrust process "with extreme seriousness." Google disputes the findings of the commission that it had willingly or negligently squeezed competitors out of its shopping searches. The prospect of raising the fine was described as theoretical by the panel's presiding judge. Still, it sent Google lawyers scrambling for arguments, with one sitting on the floor outside the courtroom frantically researching how to contest such a move. If Google loses the case, it has the right to appeal to the bloc's highest court, the European Court of Justice.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Judge Raises Prospect of Increasing Multibillion Fine Against Google More

EU Judge Raises Prospect of Increasing Multibillion Fine Against Google

Comments Filter:
    • And yet you can't run another web browser on iPhones or install a competing app store, or do a thousand other things that come down to blatant Apple anti-trust, they sue Google for not guaranteeing competitors will always show up in search. Go figure.

    • Google don't like your searches!
      Apple doesn't want you to know there's a world outside their walled garden. Like China and the internet.
      Amazon are the biggest offenders - they change for companies to advertise products through their site, and then dictate what price they can sell - even bullying, as covered by Slashdot news -,and worse still, create generic products of their own, and promote them over the paid advertisers! Talk about anti-competitive.
      Amazon lost out to Microsoft over the JEDI deal - and c

    • You mean like make cars AND make parts to repair such cars?

  • What legal reason is there for increasing the fine? Sure, if they don't pay it right away they should be charged interest. But negative interest rates seem to be the "in thing" in EU these days, so Google is just being smart.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      EU nations need that few extra billion dollars from a fine?
      Big govs do what big govs do.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )

        Big govs do what big govs do. -- Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

        ITYM "Benign Information Gathering (BIG) govs do what Benign Information Gathering govs do.

      • Looks like the Euros found a judge who _doesn't_ accept suitcases full of cash in a dark parking lot.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The fine is meant to discourage them from the illegal action.
        If the fine isn't big enough to do that, it needs to be increased until it is.
        It's common sense. Oh, you didn't understand because you are American. No surprises there.

      • EU nations need that few extra billion dollars from a fine?

        Big govs do what big govs do.

        The EU isn't strapped for cash. If they wanted to increase the budget they can simply suck it from members coffers. Funny how you conflate "big gov" with "judges and courts". You do realise nearly every democratic nation, including the EU block has those as completely separate powers right? No of course you don't, because "gubbmint bad mmmkaay".

    • They're just drunk with imagined power when a powerful accused party is in front of them. They don't comprehend the way that looking mean and corrupt damages the political side of the process.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        "They're just drunk with imagined power"

        That's pretty much a tautology, on all levels of government.

        • Idiots like you are why judges like that get power. You can't tell anything apart, so everything goes to shit and you just let it, while insisting it is inevitable.

          My goodness. I'm glad I live in a place with direct democracy and no excuses.

      • They don't comprehend the way that looking mean and corrupt damages the political side of the process.

              Which works out nicely - because the leadership of the EU *wasn't elected by the citizens(subjects) in the first place*. Works out good for them, n'est-ce pas?

        • Apparently you don't understand how a representative democracy works. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before writing stupid things.

      • Isn't this precisely what they're accusing Google of?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well the judge very clearly stated the legal reason, if the EU found that Google was not deterred from further violations by the fine then it could be increased.

    • Re:Uh, what? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bsolar ( 1176767 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @02:09AM (#59730408)
      Why is that even surprising? During an appeal the original decision gets re-evaluated and eventually a new decision is made based on the new arguments presented by both sides. Nothing says the new decision can only favour the defender.

    • What legal reason is there for increasing the fine?

      Did you read the article? The reason is pretty obvious - that Google considers the fine a cost of doing business and has not been deterred from doing what they do by the fine. Under such circumstances, it is "fine them till they glow, then sue them for contempt of court, then fine them some more".

      • The reason is pretty obvious - that Google considers the fine a cost of doing business and has not been deterred from doing what they do by the fine

        The problem with that reasoning is the EU never stated what they wanted Google to stop doing. The negotiation process for trying to avoid the fine in the first place was Google proposing how they would change their behavior, presenting it to the EU, the EU saying nope not good enough, Google coming up with a new proposal, presenting it to the EU, the EU saying

        • Re:Uh, what? (Score:5, Informative)

          by moronoxyd ( 1000371 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @04:56AM (#59730542)

          The reason is pretty obvious - that Google considers the fine a cost of doing business and has not been deterred from doing what they do by the fine

          The problem with that reasoning is the EU never stated what they wanted Google to stop doing.

          Untrue. The EU said what behavior by Google was anti-competitive. They listed the things they had a problem with. They said why these things were a problem.

          What the EU didn't do was to tell Google how to remedy the situation. There isn't always exactly one way to get rid of anti-competitive behavior. And instead of forcing one solution on Google, they gave Google the choice to offer solutions themselves.
          But as companies are wont to do, Google tried to get out of this with as little change as possible Thus the first suggestions where not actually enough to remove the problem.

          • The reason is pretty obvious - that Google considers the fine a cost of doing business and has not been deterred from doing what they do by the fine

            The problem with that reasoning is the EU never stated what they wanted Google to stop doing.

            Untrue. The EU said what behavior by Google was anti-competitive. They listed the things they had a problem with. They said why these things were a problem.

            What the EU didn't do was to tell Google how to remedy the situation. There isn't always exactly one way to get rid of anti-competitive behavior. And instead of forcing one solution on Google, they gave Google the choice to offer solutions themselves. But as companies are wont to do, Google tried to get out of this with as little change as possible Thus the first suggestions where not actually enough to remove the problem.

            It's not that clear. The problem is that there's a lot of room for subjective interpretation of market dynamics and effects. Google disagreed that its actions were creating the market problems that the EU claimed, or even that those problems existed, and thought it was already acting fairly. It's difficult to know what changes will address a problem that you don't see. The line the EU drew was broad and fuzzy, and Google thought it was already on the safe side of it.

            I suppose Google could have jumped c

          • This is unfortunately a business model for something that should not have a business model: government regulation.

            1. Specify an airy desire as a law
            2. Wait for something you can argue is a violation
            3. Settle the fine, and what you claimed becomes part of the de facto law going forward, making it mildly clearer
            4. Profittt!!!

            The US currently has 40-some case study settlements about violating "insufficient security" regulations.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          WTF? Why would you make up such obvious bullshit? Of course the EU has stated what Google has done wrong, see here for example where they've bullet pointed the findings of the case where Google is expected to act:

          https://techcrunch.com/2017/06... [techcrunch.com]

          Just in case you find links too difficult:

          - Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query into the Google search engine in relation to which Googleâ(TM)s comparison shopping service wa

          • This isn't America, the EU has a healthy judicial system where there aren't presidents that can interfere with cases to get their criminal friends reduced sentences, or stack the judiciary with their friends so it al

            Home of the Olympic committee? Please.

            People go into politics so they can get in the way so they can get paid to get back out of the way. They just have to hide it better in more open countries.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      What legal reason is there for increasing the fine?

      Because Google is appealing the fine, clearly. Nice business you have there, pity if something happened to it. Google and the EU deserve each other. No sympathy either way.

      But in all seriousness, the EU could not make it more clear that American businesses are not welcome there. It's time to take the hint guys. They will never run out of reasons to fine you, because their goal is taking all your money. The lure of all that EU ad revenue is just the bait for the monkey trap. Don't be the monkey: just

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's time to take the hint guys. If you don't follow the rules you will be fined.
        This isn't the US, we have rules and care about people here not just campaign contributors..

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by wilsong ( 322379 )
      Any legal reason would be secondary. EU judges are primarily political.

    • What legal reason is there for increasing the fine?

      Now that there’s no more Britain to exploit, they have to pull money from somewhere.

    • What legal reason is there for increasing the fine?

      Because they had the temerity to appeal. If you dare to challenge the perfect wisdom of the regulators, they threaten to fine you even more. Now roll over and beg forgiveness.

  • TARGET: Alphabet/GOOGLE 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043
    GOAL: Enforce EU law worldwide by extorting "fines" for normal business practice.

    ORDER OF BATTLE: EU World Police (Marshall Petain division)

    WEAPONS EMPLOYED: Baugettes, BO, and a snooty attitude

    OPPOSING FORCE ASSESSMENT: There is no indigenous dedicated army for Alphabet/Google. However, there is a particularly aggressive Brownie troop with a field trip tp Shoreline to see Raffi scheduled for ZERO HOUR.

    PROSPECTS: The opposing force rep

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      If you want to do business in my country, you're playing by my rules. If you don't want to, GTFO.

      • Agreed. But of course, Google never went the there in the first place. You connected to the internet, that's a choice, your citizens used Google instead of the other search engines, that's a choice. So make other choices.

        Why not use your own search engine, or, your own internet? Or redirect Google to other search engines. The Chinese manage : https://www.baidu.com/ [baidu.com]

        It certainly wouldn't be because you just want to hold Google up for money, and now you are trying

        • I would like to remind you that the users of Google's services are not the customer, they're the product. Google can control where they sell advertising.

        • > Agreed. But of course, Google never went the there in the first plac

          And advertisers in the EU paid for Google based advertising, which is how Google makes a profit. So yes, they are doing business.

          > Why not use your own search engine

          Because has an effective monopoly in the business.

          > Why not use your own search engine, or, your own internet? Or redirect Google to other search engines. The Chinese manage

          Baidu is a mandatory service used to control and intercept, not merely provide, informat

          • Either it's a monopoly, or it's not:

            https://www.bing.com/ [bing.com]
            https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com]

            It's not.

            Baidu is a mandatory service used to control and intercept, not merely provide, information and advertising in China. It is also extremely abusive.

            So, Google is a lot better? They offer a superior service that people prefer, although many other options exist?

            What, exactly, is the problem again?

            A bunch of effete, officious, unelected bureaucrats, having completely abandone

            • I was cautious to use the word "effective monopoly" to distinguish from an absolute monopoly. Google and other industry giants have used monopoly powers, and been successfully sued or prosecuted for doing so, so I do think "effective monopoloy" is justified.

              > So, Google is a lot better?

              I'd say so, yes. They've struggled, visibly, to make information more available to all and to avoid censorship than Baidu does, and they are notably less cooperative with government mandates to censor information. Baidu c

        • Google never went the there in the first place.

          Really? Google calls itself an Irish company with all profits directed towards a country within the EU. They have 24 major offices in the EU (soon to be 21 with the UK leaving). In fact they are building a close to $2bn consolidated headquarters in Europe right now.

          For a company that "never went there" they seem to have an awful lot of people there, an awful lot of offices there, and Google Ireland Ltd. somehow recorded a $1.2bn profit there as well. Quite curious for a company that "never went there".

      • Corps should just keep killing judges until they knock this shit off.

      • This is protectionism and it is entirely the opposite of what the EU was founded on.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by wilsong ( 322379 )
        When did you personally make those "rules"? When did you get a chance to knowingly vote for or against those "rules"?
  • If you know it's paywalled and then offer an alternative, just don't post the WSJ link in the first place.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close