Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Facing Fine of Up To $1.4 Billion In India Over Rigged Search Results

Posted by Soulskill on from the better-google-a-good-lawyer dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Competition Commission of India has opened an investigation into Google to decide whether the company unfairly prioritized search results to its own services. Google could face a fine of up to $1.4 billion — 10% of its net income in 2014. A number of other internet companies, including Facebook and FlipKart, responded to queries from the CCI by confirming that Google does this. "The CCI's report accuses Google of displaying its own content and services more prominently in search results than other sources that have higher hit rates. It also states that sponsored links shown in search results are dependent on the amount of advertising funds Google receives from its clients. Ecommerce portal Flipkart noted that it found search results to have a direct correlation with the amount of money it spent on advertising with Google." The company has faced similar antitrust concerns in the EU and the U.S

13 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. A free search engine by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So a free search engine returned results in an order I don't like. Oh the humanity!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:A free search engine by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      At the end of the day, a search engine is just a website that offers it's opinion of what URLs closest match what you typed. Last I checked opinions are free speech, though I suppose not every country respects free speech.

      Then again, even in the US, investment advice firms have been sued for expressing opinions that cause other company's stock to tumble. Though generally the companies that sue these firms are doing so because said firm looked at their books and smelled a rat, and the suing company doesn't want the public to know about that rat's existence. Sometimes those lawsuits are successful anyways though.

    2. Re:A free search engine by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So a free search engine returned results in an order I don't like. Oh the humanity!

      Whether it is "free" or not is irrelevant. In many countries, it is illegal for a company to unfairly exploit its dominance in one market to gain advantage in another market.

    3. Re:A free search engine by KermodeBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the thing, though. Lots of people use Google, it's true, because it provides the best search results. However, the cost of entry to using another search engine is zero. This isn't like a company that is so expansive that it can keep the prices on a product very low, preventing another company from being able to enter the market.

      The cost of entering the search engine market is also very low. You just need someone smart and innovative to build a better algorithm, then some money to buy the server space somewhere.

      The cost of entry is low. The cost of switching to another product is zero. Google is the dominant product, but not because it is maliciously destroying all other alternatives.

      I'm also not convinced that listing one's own products first is abusive in any way. Google doesn't prevent other services from being listed. Heck, when I search for "free email" I see providers I've never heard of before (GMX, Easy.com), and a few articles about free email services. That looks like a lot of options to me.

      As far as I can tell this is just another attempt by a government to squeeze money out of something simply because they can. Google will sigh, roll its eyes, and pay out whatever the government wants because - wait - it doesn't have any choice but to pay that entry fee, otherwise it cannot operate there.

      Which organization holds monopolistic power again?

      --
      Love sees no species.
    4. Re:A free search engine by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      However, the cost of entry to using another search engine is zero.

      This is NOT about other companies entering the search market. It is about Google muscling their way into other markets by unfairly exploiting their dominance in search.

      It is not illegal to dominate a market. It is not even illegal to be a monopoly. But it is illegal to use that dominant power unfairly.

  2. Pay more, get more by war4peace · · Score: 2

    Isn't this how commerce works?
    Company A pays 100 bucks for ads, company B pays 10000 bucks for ads, company B gets results displayed first on similar search terms.
    Is this illegal?

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Pay more, get more by Cassini2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article specifically states that rank in sponsored links correlates to advertising spend, which I would expect.

      I would also expect a weaker correlation between page rank and advertising spend in the normal links. Firstly, a site with significant advertising spend will hopefully generate more hits, and this should translate into page-rank. Secondly, I would expect a site with significant advertising spend to spend more on its site, which hopefully results in a more informative and more useful site. In turn, this should result in a weak correlation between advertising spend and page rank. Lastly, some correlation probably exists between advertising spending, and hits from the google search spider. This may translate into improved page rank for trending topics.

      In all, I would be surprised if there were not correlations between advertising spend and Google page rank. What I do like from Google is that they clearly label the sponsored versus non-sponsored links. Also, Google also has a number of non-commercial sites at the top of many search suggestions, which indicates that they treat sites without advertising spend reasonably.

    2. Re:Pay more, get more by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean like how that show Under the Dome always has product placement integrated into the script? In fact, I have a working theory about the show's plot that hasn't been revealed yet:

      If you notice, basically every character in that show goes around carrying a windows phone and/or a surface tablet. One of the aliens told the town that the dome was sent down to protect. My guess is that since so many Microsoft products were under the dome, somehow that billion dollars worth of surface tablets ended up there and not in customer's hands, the dome was sent to protect the world from surface tablets and windows phones by trapping them all inside. The people inside are screwed of course, but at least the rest of the world is safe.

      So there, you don't need to watch that show anymore because you already know how it ends (besides, the directing and writing sucks anyways. They scored some good acting talent, but even good actors can't make that show look believable.)

  3. Re:India is corrupt by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    There's nothing corrupt about holding companies accountable for their violations of the law (including anti-trust law), and then fining them heavily when they're convicted. It sure beats the US/EU way of going to all that legal trouble, and then slapping them on the wrist with a paltry fine that's written off as "the cost of doing business" since they made far, far more by doing the illegal thing than they have to pay in fines as a consequence.

    (The EU isn't quite as bad as the US in assessing paltry fines, but their fines are still paltry.)

  4. Click farms by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    India is known to host click farms. Where people are paid to spend their days liking pages and clicking ads.
    And it seems that they found that Google prefers to get paid for ads rather than allowing said click farms to artificially boost search results.

    The most ridiculous is this part :

    It also states that sponsored links shown in search results are dependent on the amount of advertising funds Google receives from its clients.

    Isn't it the whole point of sponsored links, aka ads?

  5. Re:Anti competitive as well by chilenexus · · Score: 2

    Google intentionally has everyone disavow your search engine links

    Source?

  6. Weird, Microsoft is involved. by stongef · · Score: 3, Informative

    FTA: "Microsoft has made an extensive submission on Google's alleged abuse of power, according to the report, seen by ET". Surprise, surprise ... I don't trust big companies in general, but I trust Microsoft + any country's justice system and even less than I trust Google ...

  7. Google Terms and Conditions by windyweather · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's time for Google to have Terms and Conditions... For Countries. Quote: If you want google to be available within your countries boundaries - based on IP address and nothing else by the way since we aren't going to check anything but this - then you as a sovereign country agree to the following: (1) Google does not support "Right to be forgotten" or any other censorship that you may want. Forget it or forget google. (2) Google does not fiddle with it's search results based on your country preferences. If you don't like the results, seek help with an SEO expert, or google will just not be present in your country / jurisdiction. (3) Google will abide by the terms and conditions that it has published. If you don't like them, then don't use Google or don't have google in your country. (4) We are running the best search engine that we can, based on our own conscience and our business plan. If you don't like these terms and conditions, make your own search engine. Up to you. End Quote: Seems like it's time for this.