EU Antitrust Chief: Google "Diverting Traffic" & Will Be Forced To Change

Dupple writes "It looks like the EU is coming close to a decision regarding its investigation of Google. While saying he's 'still investigating,' the head of the European Union's antitrust regulatory body has said that he's convinced Google is 'diverting traffic' and that it will be forced to change its results. From the article: 'Despite the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's move earlier this month to let off Google with a slap on the wrist -- albeit, a change to its business practices, a move that financially wouldn't dent Google in the short term but something any company would seek to avoid -- the European Commission is looking to take a somewhat different approach: take its time, and then hit the company hard.'"

Comments

nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell do they mean by "diverting traffic", and why would it not be allowed?

What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?

TFA suggests they have a monopoly on "search" which is nonsensical, since there are many competitors and no barrier to entry, and they give the "product" away for free, so it would hard to claim any monopoly pricing power is even being used or existing.

A more sensible allegation would be that they have some kind of monopoly on advertising or user data collection, since that at least they charge for, except, that as far as I can tell, they don't have that either.

So, all in all, it looks like either a blatant cash grab by the EU, or a bullshit legal attack funded by the likes of Microsoft.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

What the hell do they mean by "diverting traffic", and why would it not be allowed?

It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).

What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?

They are the dominant search engine, and the EU appears to be deciding that they are using that dominance to help gain dominance in other markets (e.g. the aforementioned maps, amoungst others).

TFA suggests they have a monopoly on "search" which is nonsensical, since there are many competitors

They are the dominant search engine. I think you are misunderstanding antitrust legislation:
- Antitrust legislation doesn't care whether or not you have competitors, it only cares whether you are the *dominant* vendor. As a well known example, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in their operating system business, but there have always been other operating system vendors. The key was that they were the *dominant* vendor.
- Antitrust legislation doesn't say there's anything wrong with being the dominant vendor (or even the only vendor). All it says is that if you are dominating the market, you're nor allowed to use that dominance to help you gain dominance in other markets. So going back to the Microsoft example, they were dominant OS vendors, and by shipping certain freebies with the OS (e.g. a web browser) they were unfairly using their existing position to gain dominance in the browser market. Netscape, on the other hand, could never have hoped to do this since they weren't shipping anything which already dominated the market, with which to bundle their browser to compete. The EU is saying Google is using their dominance in the search engine market to push their other products in a way that is unfair to their competition.

and no barrier to entry

There's always a barrier to entry - setting up a search engine is going to involve R&D and then a hell of a lot of time and bandwidth to spider the web. However, that isn't what this is about - this isn't about Google doing anything to stop people competing in the search engine business, this is about using their existing search engine position to make it harder for people to compete in other sectors.

and they give the "product" away for free, so it would hard to claim any monopoly pricing power is even being used or existing.

No one said anything about pricing. It isn't relevant to this discussion.

So, all in all, it looks like either a blatant cash grab by the EU, or a bullshit legal attack funded by the likes of Microsoft.

Or the EU is trying to level the playing field for the smaller businesses. Whilst having everything run by a single megacorp is convenient, historically it has always been better for the consumer in the long run to have many smaller businesses offering services. The EU usually takes the attitude that a bit of short term pain (inconveniencing people by preventing the "convenient" integration of services from a single vendor) is better than the long term pain of having a single megacorp in control of huge markets and no chance for a smaller business to survive.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

No Country Redirect: www.google.com/ncr

Re:nonsensical allegations

[aaron552]

IIRC, the problem is that Google's own services appear to be favoured in search rankings over competitors. I would think that this is primarily be because they're significantly more popular than the competitors, though, and not due to any bias on the part of Google.

A search for "email" on Google returns Hotmail as the first result and "web browser" gives an ad for IE, the wikipedia page for "web browser", Opera, and Firefox before Chrome appears. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly shady on there based on my rather unscientific test.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Genda]

I just did a search on just "Beer" and the first thing to show up was "Sam Adams", I'm guessing that right there would be enough to start a war with the German's and we all know as goes Germany so goes the EU...

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the filter bubble anyway. It shows Hotmail first for YOU. It actually shows Gmail first for me.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again I am pointing out a Troll that got moderated to +5 Insightful:

Poster said:

nonsensical allegations

Both the European Union and Google's own American Government said that they were breaking the law. I take it these super powers have lawyers, economists and stuff like that making arguments based on international law and trade agreements. NOWHERE, and I mean no where in your post do you point out what is a "nonsensical allegation". You don't cite any law, any United Nations charter, any trade agreement, you don't even cite a verse from the Bible (which I was half expecting from you).

Poster said:

What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?

You use the word "monopoly" throughout your post. In fact your entire post is based on YOUR claim that these unfair, greedy Europeans want to make money off of Google because it is a "monopoly". Unfortunately for people who are interested in the TRUTH, the source article by ZDnet does not mention anything about a monopoly or anti-monopoly legislation. So your whole argument is based on a lie and yet you get up-moderated to +5 (I'm hoping and expecting this will change as newer Moderators see through your Bullshit... as is often the case).

Just out of Interest the comments on ZDnet are highly biased against the EU as well. I get the feeling that most Americans feel that if some negative judgment is made against one of their Corporate status symbols, that this is somehow anti-American, and the result of people who are obviously more stupid than Americans. I will give examples:

The EC should shut up...
and follow the American leadership

and

... and Google should being immediately blocking all EU IP's from accessing their system.

and

Why is Almunia talking to the press like this ? Abuse of Power or did promises of a large amount of money loosen his lips?

and

The EU will use whatever tactics they believe will extract funds form internet companies. If they can't manage to tax them they will fine them to get the money.

  Oh yes, unfortunately I see the same type of people posting the same types of arguments on Slashdot as well. Too bad.

Unlike the parent poster (who got moderated to +5 Insightful!), I will supply you with a reference to my evidence:
http://www.zdnet.com/eu-antitrust-chief-hints-at-forced-changes-for-google-7000009665/

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

So the lesson here is that if you build a business, develop something that's really awesome and becomes the go-to choice for nearly everyone on the planet, your reward is to be considered a monopoly and regulated as a utility?

Your reward is that you have a business that is worth billions. There is a very minor penalty that you have to adhere to slightly stricter regulations as a result. Its good for the consumer for the dominant company to have to work at staying dominant rather than sit back and stagnate since no one can compete.

There are always penalties associated with being successful, but the success generally outweighs the penalties. Or are you going to complain that successful high-profit companies shouldn't have to pay more tax than low-profit businesses because that would be a penalty on their success?

Re:nonsensical allegations

[MacGyver2210]

I don't know about other languages and countries, but in the US we have this little "Sponsored Results" label. Barring some large shift in English vocabulary, "Sponsored" is quite equivalent to "Bought and Paid For".

It also hasn't been illegal to have paid-for results top your search: as a search engine their algorithm and results sorting, etc, are all proprietary. They can keep them as black-box as they like, and as long as the product functions as they want it to, they aren't doing anything wrong. It is THEIR BUSINESS, and is not up for some money-grubbing politicians to cry foul about ad revenue 10 years after the fact.

So sick of software patents, EU regulation nonsense, China vs Japan, Fiscal Cliffs, Republicans, China vs US, all this crap. Someone start a war against aliens or robots or something, so we can act like one large compassionate human population for a change. It works in the movies....aww, who am I kidding.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

Fine, but when you go to GOOGLE and search for MAPS...don't piss and moan when the first result that comes up is Google Maps. Not only are they the most popular mapping service by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by GOOGLE...the search engine you are using at the time. Of course Google is going to put a little map in your results and say "Hey, we've got this map service...".

When you go to WINDOWS and open the BROWSER...don't piss and moan when it starts IE. Not only is it the most popular web browser by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by MICROSOFT...the operating system you are using at the time.

Serious?

[Aeros]

These are just two guys running a simple home grown search engine in their dorm room in college. Give these poor guys a break. Freakin' EU!

Re:Thanks Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 8 (!) Internet access providers where I live, all of whom provide cheap uncapped bandwidth.

Not one of my friends in the US has more than 3 and none of the ones I talk to on a regular basis has access to cheap uncapped bandwidth.

I can buy any mobile handset and use with any carrier. I buy a "Samsung" or a "Nokia" not a "T-mobile" handset.

The reason we have this freedom is because we take free markets a bit more seriously than you colonials do and we actually enforce the freedom of the market, something a free market is incapable of doing itself (although it does a number of other things very well).

Free markets are not free by virtue of design. They are kept free by regulation.

Re:No google for u!

[Thantik]

The internet still exists, it's just awfully hard to find.

Google should start supporting web search again

[kasperd]

Web search was Google's primary business, which is why they stopped doing it. Sounds strange? Nevertheless that is roughly what happened.

Initially there was google.com, and it was a web search engine. Later Google started introducing other kinds of searches, which would be hosted on subpages/subdomains of google.com. Since web search was the primary business, it remained on the front page.

At some point Google thought it would be good for the users if they could type in their search query in one place and get merged results from all of the different kinds of search, which Google is offering. That was introduced a few years ago, and it was considered such a great idea, that it would go on the front page, displacing the web search.

All the other kinds of search still had their own URLs, on which the individual kind of search could be used. But Google websearch never had such a page in the first place, because it had been on the front page. So now Google is no longer offering websearch alone.

Google should reintroduce the websearch on a subdomain like web.google.com or similar. And it should also introduce a subdomain for the merged search like everything.google.com (or something shorter). Having those existing as separate pages allowing you to search them separately is both a service to the users, who sometimes want to search specific kind of content, and also clears up some of the confusion leading to stories like this one.

Once those two kind of searches each have their own page, the remaining question is which of them users should see when they just go to google.com. At that point authorities will sound even more stupid, once they come and say, you are not allowed to show all search results from the front page, only web search. But it would be less of a problem for Google to comply, because even if it does comply, the search page with all results, which users prefer, will still exist on a slightly longer URL.

While they are at it. I think they should also introduce ads.google.com or something like that, where you can go if you specifically want to search in ads. Payment rules should be slightly different for such a page. A larger percentage of users are likely to click on an ad on such a page, and the price per click should be adjusted down accordingly. Additionally those are users who want to see the ads, and thus should be shown any appropriate ads, even if the advertiser is out of budget.

Re:No google for u!

[TheRaven64]

I've been using DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine for about 18 months. If it can't find what I need, I try Google. In the last year, Google has only once found something that DDG didn't find. If Google decided to pull out of the EU, I think it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt us...

Re:No google for u!

[Bengie]

Too bad DDG doesn't track me like Google does. I get much better results from Google because it tracks me and integrates into gmail and G+. I don't see it as much as a privacy concern as much as I do an optimization. Data collected from tracking is highly relevant to my search results.