EU Expected To Hit Google with Another Massive Antitrust Fine (fortune.com) 105
If you thought the European Commission was done hitting Google with massive fines, think again. From a report: Having already whacked the U.S. company with a $2.7 billion fine in 2017 (for disadvantaging comparison-shopping rivals in its search results) and a $5 billion fine last year (for disadvantaging software rivals in the Android ecosystem,) the Commission will reportedly issue another financial penalty next week. The fine's imminent nature was reported Friday by the Financial Times, citing three unnamed sources. The Commission and Google both declined to provide comment on the report. It is all about Google's restrictions on the "AdSense for Search" boxes that third-party websites use to make it easier for users to search their sites. Searches conducted through the boxes bring up Google ads and, with Google having such a dominant position in the European online search advertising market, the Commission warned the company in 2016 that it believed the company was illegally abusing its position.
Re: (Score:2)
Figures (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder how soon the west will realize that this approach is destroying us? Perhaps Xi and Putin (along with their online trolls ) can write a book about how to destroy western nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
them make up crimes
Anti-competitive behaviour isn't a made up crime. It's a crime in most countries. The fact America chooses not to pursue it despite also having anti-trust laws in place doesn't mean they are imaginary.
I wonder how soon the west will realize that this approach is destroying us?
Want to destroy the west? De-regulate the free market. The free market is inherently unstable with more than one company in it and will eventually consolidate to a monopoly. How great that would be. Fancy a dinner at Taco bell? Every restaurant is now taco bell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Correct (Score:2)
You have to stop the behaviour for them to stop the fines.
If you don't stop the behaviour, you can't stop the fines.
Re:Correct (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're going to fine a behavior, then you need to exactly define what behavior will cause the fine. That way companies can avoid that precise behavior to avoid the fine. If you don't want companies collecting personal info, but collecting personal info is a requisite for doing business (e.g. credit card payments), then either you need to state exactly under what situations and for how long you can collect personal info, or you need to prohibit the practice (and credit card payments) entirely. You can't just say "don't be evil" and expect companies to be able to comply.
The EU approach allows a degree of capriciousness on the part of government regulators which makes it extremely difficult for companies to come into and remain in compliance with EU anti-trust laws. I can understand why the EU wants to do it that way - it prevents loopholes. But the economic drag caused by that uncertainty about what exactly is/isn't allowed by the law far outweighs the benefit of not having loopholes.
Re:Correct (Score:5, Informative)
Sure they state how to stop their behaviour.
The literal fine says what it's for. Just stop doing that. All of it.
You're trying to think of ways for corporations to not stop their behaviour, but to find a loophole. There aren't any loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't grok EU accounting. I get that. It's not prescriptive, like US accounting. It's inclusive.
Just stop the behaviour. Stop trying to find shortcuts that let you continue the behaviour you know they're being fined for.
Weasel words won't work. Lawyers won't work. Ceasing the behaviour itself will.
Re: (Score:2)
IAL. Read the judgement.
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't bothered to read up about this particular case so this might not apply to this particular fine.
However, it is illegal for a company with a monopoly (dominant position) in one market to use the profits from that market to push themselves into a dominant position into another market.
When you have a monopoly you can hike the prices and get an unreasonable profit. This allows you to run your business in another market at a loss and starve off the competition.
Pretty much every free service Google have
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with fines per se. But the problem with the EU approach is they don't state exactly how to stop the behavior. They instead require companies to propose a solution, and they will reply whether or not they think the solution is good enough.
Huh?!?! What a load of bollocks. Google employs some of the smartest people on earth, I have every confidence in Google's ability to figure that little puzzle out.
Re: (Score:2)
But the problem with the EU approach is they don't state exactly how to stop the behavior.
What law on any book gives you instructions on how to not break it? It's not difficult to understand anti-trust regulations and abuse of market power.
They instead require companies to propose a solution, and they will reply whether or not they think the solution is good enough. If they don't think it's good enough, the company has to go back to the drawing board, come up with a new solution, and propose that. Repeat.
There is of course an alternative: Just impose daily fines until the process stops. Is that the answer you were after? Many large legal cases work in exactly this way. The point is to create a discourse that ends the behaviour rather than dragging on endless legal battles as preferred in America.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to fine a behavior, then you need to exactly define what behavior will cause the fine.
They do. "Your current behaviour will lead to a fine."
either you need to state exactly under what situations and for how long you can collect personal info, or you need to prohibit the practice (and credit card payments) entirely. You can't just say "don't be evil" and expect companies to be able to comply.
This is an antitrust case and not a personal data case.
In both situations nonetheless the law is simple and can be paraphrased as "Don't abuse a monopoly position" and "Don't fuck over consumers" respectively.
which makes it extremely difficult for companies to come into and remain in compliance with EU anti-trust laws
Bullshit. Millions of companies across the EU are successfully complying with those laws. Maybe Google should prioritise compliance with the law ahead of corporate growth and profits.
Re: (Score:2)
If they do stop the behaviour, the fines will stop.
I stand by my correct interpretation of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think you understand how EU rules are implemented. It is possible that Google doesn't either. Maybe they think they can throw lawyers at the problem or accountants, and it will just go away. They need to change their business practices. Nothing less will work.
so just bail on EU countries, then, Google (Score:5, Interesting)
honestly, this is not a cost of doing business. block access to EU countries. see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
honestly, this is not a cost of doing business. block access to EU countries. see what happens.
To the EU: Let them eat AltaVista!
Re:so just bail on EU countries, then, Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Europe we'd replace Google almost instantly with our own technologies and/or we'd buy it from China.
We would be very happy if Google would leave our market. It would bring a lot of employment, it would give us back our own advertising market, it would give us back our privacy and politicians would regain control over their local propaganda channels and media.
Yes, yes please Google. Leave.
Re: so just bail on EU countries, then, Google (Score:1)
If the EU was capable of replacing google with homegrown options, it would have. The only thing google leaving would do for the EU is allow less effective alternatives have actual market share.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want them to leave either. It's very lucrative for Eu to keep fining google.
Really? The budget of the EU in 2019 is 164 billion USD, the total GDP of the EU was 23 trillion dollars in 2019. Whatever they are fining Google is pocket change to the member states.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU was capable of replacing google with homegrown options, it would have. The only thing google leaving would do for the EU is allow less effective alternatives have actual market share.
Google is what it is because it managed to take advantage of a particularly fortuitous situation in the internet/tech market during the 1990s to establish a monopoly that they aggressively defend because that monopoly position is a lot easier to lose than it would be to claw back. If Google went off to California to sulk they would be writing off their most profitable market after the US. Google's profits in 2018 were 136 billion dollars world wide if they were to go off to California to sulk they'd be writ
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Europe we'd replace Google almost instantly with our own technologies and/or we'd buy it from China.
We would be very happy if Google would leave our market. It would bring a lot of employment, it would give us back our own advertising market, it would give us back our privacy and politicians would regain control over their local propaganda channels and media.
Yes, yes please Google. Leave.
Oh, Europeans prefer China search engines, instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you know, instead of pissing away billions of Euros if income from the EU market out of spite, just comply with the fucking law.
Re: (Score:2)
honestly, this is not a cost of doing business. block access to EU countries. see what happens.
You think a $2.7 billion fine for doing something illegal is *not* a cost of doing business is a market of a predominantly well off 1/10th of the human race? You're delusional if you think Google would even consider pulling out of the EU over chump change. Google earns that kind of money each month in Europe. Hell Google happily wrote off the $5 billion fine in one go last time without even spreading it over accounting quarters and while their EPS took a hit that quarter the result was still a massive profi
Re: (Score:1)
Funny thing is, Google and Facebook are actually late-comers to the market and took it over because they provide the best service. The second there's a better search engine, people will move. Teens and North Americans are leaving Facebook. That's like saying break-up coke because people choose to buy it a lot. As long as there's pepsi and RC Cola on the shelf, I'm good with the better product having a larger market share.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody can compete with the first mover in a single global market that naturally produces monopolies. It is very much a winner takes all industry.
The EU is still being friendly. They could have gone the way of China and India to break the US hold on the internet. But they did not. Not yet anyway. They may if the balkanization of the internet continues and everyone else is trying to grab a piece of it.
Those guys "broke the hold" for no respectable reasons. They want to contain their populations at whim.
I see the usual disasterbators with US derangement syndrome and trolls are out in full force today. How much are you paid to front this silly post?
Payment for failed policies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, this has nothing to do with social policies, this is an example of countries that are starved of their tax base by companies that don't want to pay their share of the tax burden getting creative with avoiding the tax man. It's the equivalent of a county sheriff in the US putting up speed traps and then seizing any cash you have on you.
Perhaps if Google hadn't been so aggressive making Dutch Sandwiches they wouldn't be facing down all these pissed off politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you come to the retarded idea that a fine is used in a social policy project?
All social things like unemployment insurance, pension insurance, health insurance are founded by income of the people insured. The state or any extra money the state might make by fines is not involved at all, idiot.
Well makes sense the EU (Score:1, Troll)
Just my 2 cents
Are they even pretending any more? (Score:4, Interesting)
Europe is already making a mint from unfair trade agreements with us. They pocket a cool $150 billion every single year. Just to be clear, remember Bernie's "free college" program that was widely mocked as unaffordable? That was $60 billion a year. Trump's wall? $25 billion one-time. 150 big ones still isn't enough for them. Even with all this fat cash, they can't find enough money in the cupboard to pay for their fair share of NATO. Why are we even in NATO any more? It should have thrown itself a victory party after the Soviet Union fell and been disbanded. Most members can't fight an invading girl scout troop successfully, much less make a meaningful contribution to collective defense. How about contributing instead of taking? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, isn't that the quintessential European sentiment?
What I heard was, we pay for their shit and in return we get compliance with our wishes. This hasn't been true for decades if it was ever true at all. Instead, we get overtly hostile acts like this. And before anyone starts, this didn't begin with Trump. It goes back a long way.
Re:Are they even pretending any more? (Score:5, Informative)
The trade deficit between the USA and EU has never been $150 billion, the largest it ever was in 2015 when the balance was $122 billion.
And it isn't strange for US to import from the EU since the stuff imported are more expensive, poorer quality or unavailable in the US.
Members of NATO do pay to NATO based on their GNI but some members hasn't built up their military to the levels stipulated in the charter. The NATO members in Europe have been increasing their spending on the military since 2014. The US defense contribution to Europe amounts only to about 5% of their total NATO budget, for 2019 that amounts to $6.5 billion compared to $239 billion spent by the European members.
And your quip about "Why are we even in NATO any more?" does indicate you don't understand the role it plays in the world today.
Also, what you heard doesn't necessarily have any connection to what really happens.
Re: (Score:1)
Europeans have been ruthlessly free riding off of American payments for a long time.
The role NATO plays in the world today? It doesn't play any role. Its role was to defeat the Soviet Union, and it did that 30 years ago. Its role today is apparently to provide free security to wealthy first world nations that could easily pay for it themselves.
We Americans are hurting bad, and we need to pull back from providing for other countries and take care of our own people. Europeans despise us; they demand w
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is already making a mint from unfair trade agreements with us.
The EU and US have no trade agreement, there was one in the works but the Trump administration made torpedoing it one of the first official acts of their administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Do you get all your talking points from Trump rallies, or do you reserve bullshit only for EU stories?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You neither engaged with my ideas
I don't think anyone is "engaged with your ideas".
nor refuted anything I said
I know, but then I have already determined you're like an anti-vaxxer. Facts won't sway you, that is clear from the absurd figures in your post. That and I posted at like 2am and was on the way to bed.
Is thegarbz account a script that auto-posts?
Yes. I am an advanced Google-AI experiment designed specifically to disagree with you. I do however feel I may need to branch out. With your posts turning the Fox and Friends talking points up to 11 it would seem me disagreeing with you would be redundant and n
Re: (Score:1)
More EU tax (Score:2)
What EU nations can't control they tax.
Re: (Score:2)
What EU nations can't control they tax.
What a curious idea that sovereign, democratic governments should be in control rather than corporations.
Much as I detest Google... (Score:2)
I detest the Fourth Reich^H^H^H^the EU even more.
So, no matter who "wins" in this, I hate them both.