'We Took on Google and They Were Forced to Pay Billions' (bbc.com) 44
"Google essentially disappeared us from the internet," says the couple who created price-comparison site Foundem in 2006. Google's search results for "price comparison" and "comparison shopping" buried their site — for more than three years.
Today the BBC looks at their 15-year legal battle, which culminated with a then record €2.4 billion fine (£2 billion or $2.6 billion) for Google, which was deemed to have abused its market dominance. The case has been hailed as a landmark moment in the global regulation of Big Tech. Google spent seven years fighting that verdict, issued in June 2017, but in September this year Europe's top court — the European Court of Justice — rejected its appeals.
Speaking to Radio 4's The Bottom Line in their first interview since that final verdict, Shivaun and Adam explained that at first, they thought their website's faltering start had simply been a mistake. "We initially thought this was collateral damage, that we had been false positive detected as spam," says Shivaun, 55. "We just assumed we had to escalate to the right place and it would be overturned...." The couple sent Google numerous requests to have the restriction lifted but, more than two years later, nothing had changed and they said they received no response. Meanwhile, their website was "ranking completely normally" on other search engines, but that didn't really matter, according to Shivaun, as "everyone's using Google".
The couple would later discover that their site was not the only one to have been put at a disadvantage by Google — by the time the tech giant was found guilty and fined in 2017 there were around 20 claimants, including Kelkoo, Trivago and Yelp... In its 2017 judgement, the European Commission found that Google had illegally promoted its own comparison shopping service in search results, whilst demoting those of competitors... "I guess it was unfortunate for Google that they did it to us," Shivaun says. "We've both been brought up maybe under the delusion that we can make a difference, and we really don't like bullies."
Even Google's final defeat in the case last month did not spell the end for the couple. They believe Google's conduct remains anti-competitive and the EC is looking into it. In March this year, under its new Digital Markets Act, the commission opened an investigation into Google's parent company, Alphabet, over whether it continues to preference its own goods and services in search results... The Raffs are also pursuing a civil damages claim against Google, which is due to begin in the first half of 2026. But when, or if, a final victory comes for the couple it will likely be a Pyrrhic one — they were forced to close Foundem in 2016.
A spokesperson for Google told the BBC the 2024 judgment from the European Court of Justice only relates to "how we showed product results from 2008-2017. The changes we made in 2017 to comply with the European Commission's Shopping decision have worked successfully for more than seven years, generating billions of clicks for more than 800 comparison shopping services.
"For this reason, we continue to strongly contest the claims made by Foundem and will do so when the case is considered by the courts."
Today the BBC looks at their 15-year legal battle, which culminated with a then record €2.4 billion fine (£2 billion or $2.6 billion) for Google, which was deemed to have abused its market dominance. The case has been hailed as a landmark moment in the global regulation of Big Tech. Google spent seven years fighting that verdict, issued in June 2017, but in September this year Europe's top court — the European Court of Justice — rejected its appeals.
Speaking to Radio 4's The Bottom Line in their first interview since that final verdict, Shivaun and Adam explained that at first, they thought their website's faltering start had simply been a mistake. "We initially thought this was collateral damage, that we had been false positive detected as spam," says Shivaun, 55. "We just assumed we had to escalate to the right place and it would be overturned...." The couple sent Google numerous requests to have the restriction lifted but, more than two years later, nothing had changed and they said they received no response. Meanwhile, their website was "ranking completely normally" on other search engines, but that didn't really matter, according to Shivaun, as "everyone's using Google".
The couple would later discover that their site was not the only one to have been put at a disadvantage by Google — by the time the tech giant was found guilty and fined in 2017 there were around 20 claimants, including Kelkoo, Trivago and Yelp... In its 2017 judgement, the European Commission found that Google had illegally promoted its own comparison shopping service in search results, whilst demoting those of competitors... "I guess it was unfortunate for Google that they did it to us," Shivaun says. "We've both been brought up maybe under the delusion that we can make a difference, and we really don't like bullies."
Even Google's final defeat in the case last month did not spell the end for the couple. They believe Google's conduct remains anti-competitive and the EC is looking into it. In March this year, under its new Digital Markets Act, the commission opened an investigation into Google's parent company, Alphabet, over whether it continues to preference its own goods and services in search results... The Raffs are also pursuing a civil damages claim against Google, which is due to begin in the first half of 2026. But when, or if, a final victory comes for the couple it will likely be a Pyrrhic one — they were forced to close Foundem in 2016.
A spokesperson for Google told the BBC the 2024 judgment from the European Court of Justice only relates to "how we showed product results from 2008-2017. The changes we made in 2017 to comply with the European Commission's Shopping decision have worked successfully for more than seven years, generating billions of clicks for more than 800 comparison shopping services.
"For this reason, we continue to strongly contest the claims made by Foundem and will do so when the case is considered by the courts."
Break. Them. Up. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's that simple. Google is not only a monopoly, they're one of the most dangerous and destructive monopolies to have ever existed. Their dominance is such they can easily sway entire elections and manipulate the public consciousness in their favor.
Google needs to be broken up. Advertising, search, android, email, photos, maps, files, shatter the company and auction off the pieces to other players in the market.
Re:Break. Them. Up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Public company = automatically jailed CEOs? (Score:2)
Sure, break them up. But don't forget to go after Alphabet, the "parent" company. Alphabet was created as a vehicle for the founders and CEOs of Google to dodge direct esponsibility for monopoly misuse lawsuits when it became clear in 2015 that Google's dark behaviour would be eventually exposed.
Maybe it should be made that granting a company "public" status means that for any crimes it commits the CEO is automatically jailed a minimum amount of time (besides the normal fines), since "corporations are people", but a corporation isn't a physical person, so the CEO becomes the meat that serves the time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is unsafe at any speed, from 56k modems to the fastest broadband Google is just too dangerous to drive on the information superhighway (your Ralph Nader moment)
*glances at superhighway sign*
This Road Owned and Maintained by Google
(You wake Ralph up and tell him. I ain’t gonna do it.)
Re: (Score:3)
Any division that has more than 50% market share should be made into its own company. Definitely YouTube and search
I don't want them to be shrunk so small that they have a tough time competing against Chinese companies.
I hope Musk creates a competitive mapping app. The Tesla's cameras should be able to gather the necessary imagery.
Re: (Score:1)
At least he won't trans the American population.
Eric Schmidt forcibly mutilated my janitols. :(
Re: (Score:2)
"Umm, you want to give a guy like musk more power?"
I for one do not welcome Elon as our new imperious overlord.
Lots of CEOs are greedy psychopaths but - to use one of his pet phrases - Elon has become worse by an order of magnitude.
If Trump wins & give Elon a cabinet post, expect him to get even more deranged.
As John Dalberg-Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" & neither Elon nor Trump have shown themselves able to control their tendencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you mention is free to the user. Be prepared to start paying for all those services.
Re: (Score:3)
google must pay for past sin's they know it (Score:5, Informative)
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), which made today's judgement, said in its ruling the Commission was right to find Google's conduct "discriminatory" and its appeal "must be dismissed in its entirety".
It ordered Google and owner Alphabet to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Anne Witt, professor of law at EDHEC Business School's Augmented Law Institute, said it was "an important judgement".
"This is bad news for Google, which has exhausted its legal remedies in this case," she said - while pointing out there could be further problems ahead for the firm.
"Several follow-on actions by injured parties claiming compensation for losses suffered as a consequence of Google's anticompetitive conduct are already pending in national courts."
Re:google must pay for past sin's they know it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I get that companies would have to deal with a lot of spam as a result, but it's absolutely baffling that there's simply NO means of contacting them when you wish to dispute something. Even in ancient monarchies you could petition the king with your grievances but not even that is possible today.
Americans, taxation, representation ... How did that thing go again?
Re: (Score:2)
They have a legal department. The only way to contact them is through a lawsuit.
Re:Could have been avoided so easily... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then maybe California should fix their economy to not be dependent on an illegal monopolist.
It's not my fault the only way Google provides to file a complaint is the court system. If you think that's a problem, then talk to Google about it.... Oh wait, you'll need a lawyer to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ambiguity (Score:2)
There are problems of ambiguity with this kind of thing. I will tend to use Google to navigate to different mapping services, for example, by putting in the name of the mapping service, or something like 'online maps' if I want a list of them all. But if I want Google Maps, I will just put 'maps' in, lazily figuring that the Google part is implied. But someone else just putting 'maps' in may well be trying to do a general search for maps.
The root of the problem is the same capitalists owning a search engine
Re: (Score:2)
I never noticed, but indeed
* Google: "City Map" -> the first and only relevant result on the first page is Google Maps. Next links are commercial websites selling posters. OSM is not even on the second page.
* Bing: "City Map" -> First result Google Maps, second result "OpenStreetMaps.org", then "Mapcarta.com" (which uses OSM), "ontheworldmap.com". I didn't know these, but at least they are relevant. They did show a free map of my city when following the link.
* Qwant: Google Maps, Mappy, ViaMichelin, M
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're looking for a directory, not a search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're looking for a directory, not a search engine.
which do you recommend?
We were only being illegal for 10 years! (Score:4, Interesting)
> only relates to "how we showed product results from 2008-2017"
The gal of that statement! Hey, they were only being illegal for 10 years! 7 of those years they were in courts about it! /. is very anti-Microsoft, but I believe that overall the damage that Google has done is well above Microsoft. And they are still at it, as they basically control the internet.
I know that traditionally
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft damaged the IT world in their day until they found themselves on the wrong side of an anti-trust case and were seriously at risk of being broken up.
The power vacuum was filled by Google who rightly should be broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
"The power vacuum was filled by Google who rightly should be broken up."
And then another company will fill the void left by Google grow to do the same shitty things, and eventually that company rightly should be broken up...
So, how do we break this cycle?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe another would. Maybe it wouldn't. But with competition in all those verticals which are now mature and known products/services, it is a lot easier for a company to enter a single vertical and win it over with a support service. Taking over the entire internet the way Google has would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
Microsoft was able to do what they did because it was all new tech in PC world.
They wanted to be in Google's place in internet world but the government stopped them. So Google
Re: (Score:2)
Autocorrect ugh. "Superior service" not "support service". Although support is important that alone won't make a winner.
Links to the ruling (Score:3)
Full ruling: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega... [europa.eu]
Press statement: The https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/j... [europa.eu]
So about a thousandth of Alphabet's net worth. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure that will change their behavior.
This is a good example of why ... (Score:2)
... Google, Amazon and similar services should basically be public services.
Google is basically a telephone book with a personal agenda. Which does distort the reality Google itself displays.
If the web is a giant content database, Google is its search bar. And when commercial interests start moving from the ads at the side into the search results themselves this becomes a problem. Ever since that happened, Google has gotten worse. Not so much to be a complete nose-dive, but just enough to make the experienc
Re: (Score:2)
The US law answer to Sherman Anti-trust violators is to break up the illegal monopolist into multiple verticals. In this case, you might reasonable create unrelated companies for: search, videos (YouTube), advertising management, mobile, browser, and web based office services (Gmail, and other office tools).
We know that without support from the search and ads side a few of the others will be uncompetitive and shrink or collapse entirely, opening those markets to more innovative competition. And that's a g
Google still lies (Score:2)
Google's shopping link wasn't showing me results for the product I was looking for (a specific ice cream machine for home) except Amazon, and used eBay and fake Ali Express units. So I specifically searched on Google for other shopping sites.
I got links to Reddit users talking about their sites but not a single site came up directly on Google search.
I am shocked that Google would abuse their monopoly position to bury competitors in a different vertical. Ok, no, I'm not. This is a text book case of illega
No compensation for litigants (Score:2)
EU takes the fines and runs
Litigants take the lose-win to civil claims asking for judgement with prior findings
That means every litigant has to show evidence of “actual damages” that’s a high bar when imprisoning your means
Do no evil sign... (Score:2)
Clearly they shat on it, pissed on it, cummed on it, burned it, pissed on it some more, and burned it again just to be sure.
The regulators and every punitive authority should go full force for the kill against Google.
EU is the only one left fighting for us (Score:2)
The EU has been great. I hope one day, we might again (in the U.S.), fight monopolies to ensure a free market that serves the populous, rather than just taking advantage of it.