Slashdot Mirror


Google Hit By New Round Of Antitrust Charges In Europe (bloomberg.com)

The European commission has filed a third antitrust charge against Google -- this time it is against the Mountain View-based company's AdSense advertising business. The EU regulator is accusing Google of abusing its dominance in search to benefit its own advertising business, one of company's main revenue stream. A Bloomberg article explains the whole situation: While this is an escalation for the advertising probe, the statement of objections focused on comparison shopping bolsters a case the European Commission first laid out in an antitrust complaint in April 2015. Both of these investigations are in addition to an ongoing antitrust case against Alphabet Inc. for the alleged market-dominance of its Android mobile operating system that the EU filed in April. The antitrust issues are just one strand of a net of regulatory problems entangling the company in Europe. It is facing a separate inquiry into its use of copyrighted content from European publishers and complaints about its compliance with European "right to be forgotten" rules. A bevy of individual European governments are also investigating the company for alleged underpayment of tax. In response to the latest EU antitrust complaints, Google said that its products "increased choice for European consumers and promote competition," and that will provide a detailed response to the European Commission's claims in the coming weeks. In the past, Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt has said European officials should spend more time trying to promote Europe's own tech sector and less time trying to punish successful American companies.

39 comments

  1. First? by losfromla · · Score: 0

    Bummer for them...

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  2. Trump 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to see the same happen in the US.

  3. Abusive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU regulator is accusing Google of abusing its dominance in search to benefit its own advertising business.

    So the EU regulator is accusing Google of being a popular search engine that makes money from advertising?

    1. Re:Abusive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, antitrust cases are about using dominance in one market to obtain dominance in a another market. Here the accusation is that Google makes services such as their own comparison-shopping service appear higher in search results than competitors' services (see here). If that is true, their competition with other comparison-shopping services is not just based on the merits of their own service but also on their dominance in the search engine market, and that is what antitrust law doesn't allow.

  4. Webster by raymorris · · Score: 0

    http://www.merriam-webster.com...

    Android has 71% of the MOBILE market in Europe, including OEM-cusromized versions which aren't what Google published.
    Personally, I wouldn't call less than 71% "complete control of the entire supply".

    1. Re:Webster by sexconker · · Score: 2

      CTRL+F monopoly
      Phrase not found.

      Why are you linking to the definition of "monopoly"? TFS doesn't mention "monopoly". None of the linked articles mention it. No one posting here mentioned it until you linked to it.

    2. Re:Webster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lookup antitrust - it's linked to monopolistic actions/activities by monopolists, of which, Google is not.

    3. Re:Webster by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I'm sure your mom gave you a cookie for being smart enough to recognize the mono root.

      However the legal definition, as is often the case, is different. http://www.blacksacademy.net/c...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Webster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of those illegal activities would be to abuse your position in one market to get dominance in another.
      Since a company with a monopoly in one market doesn't have to worry about competition there they can raise prices to get extra resources. They can then use those resources to sell a product with a loss in a different market for as long as they need to to kill off the competition.
      It doesn't matter if they have less than 1% of the market share in one market, they can still be guilty of doing illegal stuff related to a monopoly status.

      Now, the way the word monopoly is used in legal cases it typically isn't required to have 100% of the market. 70% is more than enough to be called a monopoly.

    5. Re:Webster by kqs · · Score: 1

      Since a company with a monopoly in one market doesn't have to worry about competition there they can raise prices to get extra resources.

      I think that you are saying that Google is charging too much for Android to get dominance in another market? The second question, of course, is "which market"?

      Now, the way the word monopoly is used in legal cases it typically isn't required to have 100% of the market. 70% is more than enough to be called a monopoly.

      It varies, and I don't know how EU has ruled, but 70% is still kinda low. I seem to recall that the claim was the Google is using Android to gain dominance in the "Android app market". Why this isn't the "Cell phone app market" is a question that only those regulators can answer.

    6. Re:Webster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A monopoly is the limes. It's a situation you want to avoid.

      If you want to maintain free markets and access to all markets for everyone, you have to start regulating the markets as soon as one player uses it's dominating position to also become big in other markets.

      It has to be said, though, that the EU 'regulators' - a mix of politicians and bureaucrats - do not look for disturbances in the markets. Usually there's several complaints by market participants to make them investigate the situation. Following the complaints, the regulators invite the companies in questions to hearings and talks on how they can improve the situation. If a company under in question fails to prove, they are not actively stifling the competition or are not willing to work out a plan to improve the situation, they're going to be fined until they comply.

      Finally, if you read, that the EU is fining someone over abuse of a market abusing situation, rest assured, that that someone failed to argue their view and subsequently failed to give in to a compromise

  5. Google Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't the EU just create the Google Tax and be done with it.

    Transparent money grab. Might as well be honest about it.

    Using Google is a choice.

    1. Re:Google Tax by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is enforced Free Market.

      Free Market stops working if one seller has too much control over the market, therefore, it is the job of a capitalist government to make sure that this does not happen.

      Using anything is a choice - even if the seller has complete monopoly - you can just choose not to buy/use the item. This does not make effective monopolies any less damaging.

      What if Microsoft released an update that blocks $your_company website from being accessed at the OS level (no matter what browser you use) and instead redirects them to the same service offered by Microsoft - how many people would dump Windows (after all, there are alternatives) just to be able to access your website?

    2. Re:Google Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is not a monopoly. It is not like there aren't a dozen other search engines or advertisement services to choose from. This is a Google Tax. If Yandex was as big, they'd be the target. Make no mistake. Your monopoly example is completely irrelevant.

      I have no love for google, and I have no love for government, but...

      It's a Google Tax. Call it what it is.

      Me, I prefer DNS over search engines. But the world seems to have forgotten what DNS is for.

    3. Re:Google Tax by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Your monopoly example is completely irrelevant.

      Really? If Altavista decided to remove your website from its search results and if Google chose to do the same, which would cause you more damage? Would people decide that Google is a crap search engine and start using another if it does not show your website? Or would they just continue using Google and not visiting your site?

    4. Re:Google Tax by kqs · · Score: 1

      What if Microsoft released an update that blocks $your_company website from being accessed at the OS level (no matter what browser you use) and instead redirects them to the same service offered by Microsoft - how many people would dump Windows (after all, there are alternatives) just to be able to access your website?

      You mean like how whenever you click on an address in an iOS app, you always get Apple Maps, and there is no way to get Google Maps by default? Unlike Android, where once you have multiple maps apps, clicking on an address will ask you which app to use (this time and/or make the default)?

      Note, I agree that one of government's purposes is to limit the damage that a monopolistic company can cause. I'm just having trouble seeing both Android's monopoly status and what they're doing to abuse it.

    5. Re:Google Tax by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      If iOS was more popular it would get in trouble for this.

      From TFA, the complaint seems to be

      the company favors its own comparison-shopping service in its search results and that it prevented customers of one of its popular online advertising services from placing ads with rivals and restricted how rival ads were displayed.

      The second part ("if you advertise with us, do not advertise with anyone else") could be a problem for Google.

  6. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remove all Google offices from Europe. Continue to allow Android device manufacturers to sell products in Europe and allow Europeans to purchase Google services and products. Just don't have a physical presence in Europe. That way, Europe can't enforce their ridiculous and draconian laws against Google.

    1. Re:Solution by sexconker · · Score: 2

      They could block all banks from processing transactions destined to Google, Alphabet, or whatever shells they set up.

    2. Re:Solution by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      isn't that what the Alphabet holding company was created for?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  7. It's just one business by MSG · · Score: 1

    > abusing its dominance in search to benefit its own advertising business

    Yeah, but those aren't separate businesses. They're the same thing. Google accepts questions (search queries) from users and gives them back answers (relevant information, including information from people who paid to be considered relevant). Even advertising embedded in pages is the same; the page information constitutes an expression of interest in a topic, and the advertisements are intended to answer that interest. That's one coherent business. It's not one I like, but that doesn't make them separate businesses.

    You wouldn't accuse Schick of abusing its dominance in re-usable handles to benefit its own razor-selling business.

    1. Re:It's just one business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > abusing its dominance in search to benefit its own advertising business

      Yeah, but those aren't separate businesses. They're the same thing. Google accepts questions (search queries) from users and gives them back answers (relevant information, including information from people who paid to be considered relevant). Even advertising embedded in pages is the same; the page information constitutes an expression of interest in a topic, and the advertisements are intended to answer that interest. That's one coherent business. It's not one I like, but that doesn't make them separate businesses.

      You wouldn't accuse Schick of abusing its dominance in re-usable handles to benefit its own razor-selling business.

      Such naivety.

      They are separate products, the product one is promoting websites to users of the service based on their relevance. Product number two is selling advertising space in said searches.

      A very comparable product would be a free newspaper, the product for the company selling the newspaper is the news it contains, and the profit is from the advertisement.

  8. Damage control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU is trying to appear distant from Google and the US spy agencies (CIA especially).

    Matthew 24:38,24:39,24:40

    Search for it with duckduckgo.com

    American taxpayers paid for all the spy/surveillance gear (and spy salaries including 9/11 WTC on-the-clock) and are now in debt up to their eyeballs.

    Real gay shit.

  9. GOOGLE SHOULD BREXIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and say so in a song.

  10. Google using copyrighted content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see the European publishers still have the old complaint that Google is showing snippets of their news stories, which discourages people from going to the source website.

    As alway, the answer is obvious. If they don't want Google to do that, block them with robots.txt and then they won't show anything. It's as easy as that! But of course the publishers know that doing that would greatly reduce their traffic. So they just sit around and whine.

  11. Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kudos to the EU commission for standing up to Google. Google is becoming too strong and powerful. Something like this would never happen in the US, where Google can just use lobbyists to get whatever it wants.

    This should be a wake-up call to all the folks who proclaim that "Brexit" is a wonderful thing. The EU is just about the only political entity strong enough to stand up to big powerful corporations. It may not be perfect, but breaking it up and dissolving the EU would be a terrible step backwards.

    Another example is Monsanto, and GMOs. In America and Canada, Monsanto et al have used their lobbying power to prevent GMOs from being labeled. In the EU, GMOs MUST be labelled, by law, and Monsanto et al have given up trying to fight it.

  12. Another money grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU wants to extort Google for as much money as possible before the EU is disbanded.

  13. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    OH, so if Google would decide to block the website of your company (or the company you work for) from appearing in the results, people would just dump Google so that they can search for your company? Or would they just do business with one of your competitors whose website is not blocked by Google?

  14. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet worked just fine before Google came along and it can still work fine without google.

    I can tell my customers to go to myfuckingwebsite.com and they will get there. This is what DNS is for kids.

    GTFO my lawn you little shit.

    Who the fuck is modding this irrelevant twat up?

  15. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great business you have if the only people who know about you already do. Great for growth!

  16. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    so, it's myfuckingwebsite.org? Or is it myfuckingwebsite.net? Maybe myfuckingwebsite.eu? No, I think it was thefuckingwebsite.com. Nah, probably anonymouscowardsfuckingwebsite.com. Still no. If only there was a way to find the website by entering "Anonymous Coward's fucking website" or even entering what the site is about and finding the address. You know, something like a telephone book.

  17. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's printed on the card that I fucking handed to them.

    What the fuck, you think the internet did not exist before Google?

    There was an internet before google and there will be one after google. You don't need google you fucking braindead dipshit.

    Fucking kids. Stuff your iphone up your ass. Google that fuckface.

  18. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I guess business did not exist before Google?

    Someone is just making up all this pre-google business history?

    Quite the conspiracy theory you have there.

  19. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    So, I need to contact you and meet in person (or at least call you) before I can go to your website?

    Internet existed before Google, also people used telephone books and read classified ads more often. Now, if they want to buy your product, they will enter it in Google and buy from whatever website Google can find. If your website is not there (but your competitor's is) then you have a problem.

    If I need to have the exhaust system in my car repaired, I will enter "car exhaust repair in $my_city" into Google and look trough the results (or I may ask one of my friends if he knows anyone good). I will not go to every car mechanic that has an ad near his place of business and ask whether he would be willing to repair my car.

  20. Re:Google is not a Monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it is your contention that no business can exist without Google?

    You are fucking retarded.

    What is Hewlett-Packard's domain? (without using fucking google as DNS) Could it be hp.com? How about Ford? Maybe it's ford.com? What about Toyota? Maybe it's toyota.com? What about General Electric? Maybe it's ge.com? How about NASA? Maybe it's nasa.gov? How about Harvard? Maybe it's harvard.edu?

    You are so fucking stupid it is unbelievable.

    It is also plainly obvious you have a second account with mod points to mod yourself up (every post of yours in this thread at 2). Twat. Fucking stupid twat.

    Eat shit and die you fucking subhuman drooling idiot fuckwad, Fucking fuck your fucking self.

  21. DUCKDUCKGO AND FUCK GOOGLE'S ASSHOLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is just a US government spy corporation masqurading as a search engine with phone/tablet sales.

    cut/paste the following into a text file and import it into custom filters in your adblock plus. allow them when you need them. also set your clock to way wrong unles you need it correct to timestamp an outgoing email.
    ---name it whatever.txt after this line, it is just a good start. add more and uncheck if you want them to actually see you.---

    [Adblock Plus 2.0]
    ! Checksum: yUmFkHJWRjuyFZdV9gNRcw
    ! [cunts]
    ||omniroot.com^
    ||bing.net^
    ||youtube-nocookie.com^
    ||symcd.com^
    ||ytimg.com^
    ||googlevideo.com^
    ||shavar.services.mozilla.com^
    ||mozilla.org^
    ||googletagmanager.com^
    ||clients1.google.com^
    ||facebook.com^
    ||google-analytics.com^
    ||googletagservices.com^
    ||google.com^
    ||twitter.com^
    ||googlesyndication.com^
    ||ajax.googleapis.com^
    ||facebook.net^
    ||gstatic.com^
    ||youtube.com^
    ! [vid.me spies]
    ||petametrics.com^
    ||janrain.com^

  22. Shakedown. by thrasher+thetic · · Score: 1

    So someone do it better, then they get the money instead of google. That's how a free market works. This is just a government sanctioned shakedown. The Euros want a slice of that pie, and they'll probably get it too.