Landmark EU Tech Rules Holding Back Innovation, Google Says

Google will tell European Union antitrust regulators Tuesday that the bloc's Digital Markets Act is stifling innovation and harming European users and businesses. The tech giant faces charges under the DMA for allegedly favoring its own services like Google Shopping, Google Hotels, and Google Flights over competitors. Potential fines could reach 10% of Google's global annual revenue.

Google lawyer Clare Kelly will address a European Commission workshop, arguing that compliance changes have forced Europeans to pay more for travel tickets while airlines, hotels, and restaurants report losing up to 30% of direct booking traffic.

Turns out legislation works!

[wileeam]

So Google is telling the EU that abiding by a legislation that increases competition is not good for... the competition?

How is Google concluding that increasing competition leads to "worse online products and experiences for EU citizens? As a gatekeeper as per the DMA, where's the data?

Looks to me that Google is afraid of having to innovate again to compete.

Re:

[znrt]

googles complaint is the sound of empire losing control.

so is the eu comission's. they're desperate for cash and being taken seriously which nobody does anymore. the whole competition thing is just a facade, we aren't even in a position to compete.

Re:

[postbigbang]

Not really.

"Stifling Innovation" is a dog whistle for "Stifles Shareholder Return".

Google is the progenitor of the panopticon, and its current leader is Palantir, who wants you, and everything about you, so that you can be manipulated and sold.

The EU has actual cojones to take on Google where the current extreme laissez faire 47 Gov tries to suck every puddle of cash available from crypto to Bibles to phones.

The answer is to stop being the product. EU thinking understands this. The rest of us are for sale.

Re:

[znrt]

The answer is to stop being the product. EU thinking understands this.

if they did they would outright ban it, and if they had an answer they would be developing their own, not regulations intended to haggle for a tiny slice of the profits. it's hilarious that they even make that explicit. 10%! they will make big headlines settling for 10% of that ... and lucky to actually get a 10% of that. nobody gives a shit about the product, it's sold already.

Hope you like your new master.

"daddy"? he's not really new, but his gambling problem is getting worse ... kids are panicking already but just wait until the evic

Re:

[F.Ultra]

no they are not desperate for cash, all of the penalties payed are deducted from the EU budget so EU does not gain monetarily from issuing penalties to misbehaving companies like Google.

Re:

[znrt]

it's not clear at all where that cash goes in all cases, but it still stays in the big club, go figure. about desperate ... they just "commited" 800 billion of imaginary euros over the "next few years" to fight imaginary invaders. because evil russia. yet an invasion of western europe is less likely by russia than by alien sharks with lasers strapped on their backs. they are desperate and irrational. or they're just set to rip us off, who knows.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

It is 100% clear. Every single penny is put into the current EU budget and the exact value is then deducted from what the EU receives from the member states the next year. Would be much simpler if you read up on how things really worked instead of just assuming things.

Re:

[znrt]

you might work on your reading yourself. it depends on the type of fine, e.g. antitrust violations (as is the case here) go directly to the eu budget, data privacy fines are cashed by instutions of member states which get to keep it (if they're self sustained and/or compensate victims) or hand it over to the national budget (just like a tax) but in any case the money does not get back to the eu budget. trade and customs fraud fines are partially compensated to the eu budget. financial fraud fines are handle

Re:

[F.Ultra]

Then you are not talking about the EU but about single member states suing these companies for violating local laws. Completely different thing and have in that case zero to do with the EU.

Re:

[znrt]

Then you are not talking about the EU but about single member states suing these companies for violating local laws.

which are implementations of eu law.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

and on a second reading it turns out that you are wrong here as well (what a surprise), the fines in question was imposed by the EU commission and not by any member state.

Re:

[znrt]

and on a second reading it turns out that you are wrong here as well (what a surprise), the fines in question was imposed by the EU commission and not by any member state.

here's some material to work on your reading skills:

antitrust violations (as is the case here) go directly to the eu budget

so, in this case it would engross the eu budget, directly, for whatever they wish to do with it.

enjoy. pay attention to the last sentence, it may be a bit tricky for you. it means that this is extra money for the eu commission which they are in no obligation to justify spending for nor to commit to any specific chapter, related or not to the offense.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

It is not my fault that you don't know how it works, I even covered exactly this in my first post. Yes it goes directly into the current EU budget and decreases the amount that the member states have to pay the following year, aka the EU does not gain anything of it since what they gain now they looses the next year. This whole thing is designed to not be abused in the way that you pretend that it is.

Re:

[znrt]

I even covered exactly this in my first post.

what you covered in your first post:

all of the penalties payed are deducted from the EU budget so EU does not gain monetarily from issuing penalties

is just wrong because, as i just told you (but you didin't read or understand):

- not all of the fines are treated equal, what you describe is actually exceptional and even then often only applies to a part of the amount
- the full amount of this particular fine would be a net monetary gain for the eu

Re:

[F.Ultra]

no, no and no. Every single fine that the EU will ever hand out will always be handled this way. It is put into the current EU budget and then the amount that the member states have to pay in to fund the EU for the next period will be decreased by the exact amount of the fine. This is true for every single fine dealt out by EU with no exceptions. Plus that due to how the EU works on an organization level they cannot ever make a monetary gain, if they do not use their budget then the budget will be decreased

Re:

[wierd_w]

No no no, see, these regulations are working exactly as intended.

Google/Alphabet is looking for ways to extract more and more "Value(tm)" for their shareholders, and since they have already plumbed the legal avenues for revenue generation, the only options left are grey, and outright illegal methods of generating it, as it concerns user privacy, and as it relates to monopolistic business practices.

The "Innovation!!" that this, and other large companies are screaming about, is the "NEW! and AMAZING, MONEY MA

Re:

[gweihir]

EU regulation is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to be doing, and Google needs to be FUCKING TOLD THIS, VERY VERY FUCKING PUBLICLY.

Indeed. And it will be. Probably by losing 10% of its revenue.

Re:

[phantomfive]

How is Google concluding that increasing competition leads to "worse online products and experiences for EU citizens?

It's obvious. Customers, and EU citizens, won't be able to enjoy as many auto-play videos ads.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Take flight as an example. You have two choices, you can book via a comparison site/broker, or you can book directly with the airline.

Sometimes you get a small discount on the comparison sites/brokers, but it tends to not be much. In return you lose a lot of your rights. Your transaction is with the comparison site/broker, not the airline, so if things go wrong the airline will often just direct you to them. Even just contacting those sites is difficult, let alone getting tickets refunded or rebooked.

Much b

Re:

[karmawarrior]

It's not that they're afraid of innovating, it's that they're afraid of having to do the good, consumer friendly, form of innovation where you create better products for end users, rather than enshittify them to boost your share price temporarily through "innovations" that actively harm end users.

Re:

[shmlco]

"Looks to me that Google is afraid of having to innovate again to compete."

Most of Google's recent innovation lies in coming up with new ways to screw over its users.

The 2020's version

[dskoll]

"This will stifle innovation!!" is the 2020s version of "Think of the children!!!"

Transparent bullshit. The USA is a lost cause, but maybe the rest of the world can stand up to the oligarchs.

Re: The 2020's version

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

Thank you very much. The word "innovation" is used to hypnotize politicians. Tech has been leading the pols around by the nose for too long.

Re:

[Richard_at_work]

Its like claiming medical ethics laws are stifling the advancement of medical treatment and drugs, because you cant test on patients without their knowledge and explicit consent...

They might very well be, but its a limitation society is willing to accept over the protestations of drug companies.

Re:

[q_e_t]

They all do all three to differing extents in differing areas. Maybe you've heard of a company called Deep Mind, for example - it may be part of Google now but it wasn't so originally. Or maybe you've heard of BionTech.

Re:

[dskoll]

Maybe in the past. But now with the Rethuglicans aiming their ire at education, US universities are no longer going to attract the best and brightest, and innovation in the USA will decline. Do you honestly think Google, Amazon or Meta have innovated recently? All they've done is consolidate monopoly power.

Meanwhile, China is in fact innovating in many areas. And if you want to see innovation in Europe, you only need to look to Ukraine to appreciate their ingenuity in standing up to a much larger mili

"innovation"

[Gravis Zero]

A lack of restrictions results in companies being sloppy and "expanding filing the container" much like a lack of resource restrictions has resulted in a lot people writing complex beasts in very high level languages. Take Microsoft's VSCode IDE for example, it's easy to write and extend because it's written in typescript but it is an obese monster of a program.

Google is basically whining that they cannot consume an excessive amount of resources in the tech market because it's quick and easy. Time cost mone

Re:

[easyTree]

Given that everyone knows it's about money, perhaps they could score authenticity points by just saying so, or is openness frowned-upon?

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

They use coded language because there are a lot of people who aren't savvy enough to recognize it's about money. Anyway, openness would be welcome. If anything, I think using coded language to be a sign of dishonesty and thus obnoxious, contemptible, and meriting punishment.

Well, see...

[greytree]

If Google didn't do evil, we would care what they thought about legislation to protect people.

But Google does evil, a lot, so they can FOAD.

Harming European Businesses?

[thegarbz]

Given the DMA only restricts mega corporations, how is it harming European businesses? Especially since such a law would direct more traffic to smaller local competitors of Google's advertisement for products, flights, and hotels.

More like the other way round

[gweihir]

But Google has been a habitual liar for a while now.

well they would say that wouldnt they

[Growlley]

just like paying a fair share of taxes is always wrong. ie if I have to pay 30%+ so should those fuckers

Stifling innovation and hurting business is OK

[gurps_npc]

I do not want criminals to innovate. There are lots of businesses and users that should be hurt. Drug cartels come to mind.

In some businesses innovation makes the world a better place. In others, it makes it worse.

Governments make laws. Those that break the laws are criminals. It does not matter if they pay millions in legal taxes, such as Google or Ticketmaster, or do not pay the taxes and have to launder the money - such as organized crime and drug cartels.

Government is concerned with things more im

So?

[jenningsthecat]

European Union rules aimed at reining in Big Tech are hampering innovation to the detriment of European users and businesses

This is a prime example of the seemingly fundamental, yet verifiably false, contention that "innovation" is an unalloyed, unquestionable good. Invading people's privacy on the Web was an innovation; it was also a disaster and, as far as I'm concerned, a criminal act. HP was "innovating" when they locked their users into buying only HP-branded ink for their printers. Software as a Service is yet another innovation. In fact, companies 'altering the deal' seems almost a defining characteristic of what Big Tech

Stop killing games

[serafean]

Just wait until Stop Killing Games ( https://www.stopkillinggames.c... [stopkillinggames.com] ) starts to be discussed in legal circles, these businesses will shit a brick. A real discussion about what digital ownership means.
EU citizens, go sign it! Keep games working after being EOLed.

Strange spelling

[Fudoka]

"Innovation" - that's a funny way of spelling profits

direct traffic... via Google ads

[dolmen.fr]

"losing up to 30% of direct booking traffic"

Well direct traffic *via Google*...

I have a different definition of "direct" than Google's.

Megacorps

[q_e_t]

No large US tech firms were an outgrowth of tea rooms and cake manufacturers, which is a bit sad. No installing Hershey's Doors XP and experiencing the brown screen of death.