Google Could Face a $9 Billion EU Fine For Rigging Search Results In Its Favor (independent.co.uk)

schwit1 quotes a report from The Independent: EU antitrust regulators aim to slap a hefty fine on Alphabet unit Google over its shopping service before the summer break in August, two people familiar with the matter said, setting the stage for two other cases involving the U.S. company. The European Commission's decision will come after a seven-year investigation into the world's most popular internet search engine was triggered by scores of complaints from both U.S. and European rivals. Fines for companies found guilty of breaching EU antitrust rules can reach 10 percent of their global turnover, which in Google's case could be about $9 billion of its 2016 turnover. Apart from the fine, the Commission will tell Google to stop its alleged anti-competitive practices but it is not clear what measures it will order the company to adopt to ensure that rivals get equal treatment in internet shopping results. The company has also been charged with using its Android mobile operating system to squeeze out rivals and with blocking competitors in online search advertising related to its "AdSense for Search" platform. The platform allows Google to act as an intermediary for websites such as online retailers, telecoms operators or newspapers. The Commission has warned of massive fines in both cases.

Comments

"Rigging"?

[Frosty Piss]

Apart from the fine, the Commission will tell Google to stop its alleged anti-competitive practices but it is not clear what measures it will order the company to adopt to ensure that rivals get equal treatment in internet shopping results.

It's Google's product , it's not some public resource that Google manages for the good of society. Why shouldn't Google leverage their own product which exists solely to generate profit for Google? There is always Bing.

Re:"Rigging"?

[KermodeBear]

Precisely. It isn't as if they hide everyone else's products. It isn't as if you're forced to use Google. If Google wants to put its own stuff at the top, what's wrong with that? It isn't as if someone is being tricked. "Gosh, gMail, Google' email product, I wonder if that has anything to do with - MY GOD, IT DOES! THOSE BASTARDS TRICKED ME!"

This is the same kind of crap with Microsoft having IE as the default browser.

Am I supposed to be enraged because when I buy a Ford they have Ford-designed headlights?

Re:"Rigging"?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Nope. In Europe at least, you have to stick to a few additional rules if you enjoy (near) market dominance. For instance, you may not use that monopoly to create an unfair advantage selling or promoting other products or services you're offering. Microsoft got done for using their monopoly on the desktop to push Internet Explorer, which was deemed a product separate from the OS. I'm not sure what Google is being accused of here, but it sounds like they are using their search engine and/or AdSense to promote their own stuff at the expense of their competitors.

Re:"Rigging"?

[rahvin112]

In a normal circumstance I agree completely. I think the EU is off base here because there is no barrier of entry to search, ad's or commercial sales of any kind. There are more than a half a dozen search engines, dozens of ad companies and hundreds of competing stores.

Nothing at all stops consumers from switching. For that reason alone the EU is off base with any kind of fine. I have no doubt that this fine is being leveled for tax reasons and has nothing at all to do with competition.

Re:"Rigging"?

[Cyberax]

It doesn't matter if there are competitors - if you HAVE a monopoly then you're regulated. It's that simple.

Re:"Rigging"?

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's not about Google's dominance in any of these areas; the EU doesn't care per se if Google is the most popular search engine or mobile OS. It's about Google using their dominance in one area to gain an advantage in another that the Commission takes issue with.

A friend of mine used to run a fairly popular web shop. He told me that the difference between being the top ranked result on Google and being down to 3rd of 4th made an immediate and sizable impact on his revenue. That's all well and good if you only have regular competitors... but what if you are selling what Alphabet is also selling, and they put their own shop at the top and bump you down to page 2? Sure, you were free to start your own business, take out some more ads, and anyone is free to switch to Bing, but if you compete with Google and they bump you off the search results, you can be sure your sales are going to take a massive hit as no one is going to find you.

In other words: the more dominant your service is in the market, the more neutral the Commission expects you to be. Especially in places like search engines and ad rotation where the customer expects neutrality.

Re:"Rigging"?

[TheRaven64]

The legal and economic definitions of a monopoly are different (in the US as well as the EU). A monopoly in the economic sense is a single supplier for whom there is no competition, which can therefore exert massive influence over the market. A monopoly in the legal sense is a company with a sufficiently large market share that they can act as if they were a monopoly. In the EU, Google has over 90% of the search engine market. This means that, in terms of economic impact, the other players are largely irrelevant. If Google searches are rigged to push Google products, then this will affect almost as many consumers as if they had a monopoly in the traditional economic sense and will have the same impact on the market.

This is exactly the same situation that Microsoft was in with Windows. They didn't have 100% of the desktop market, but they had a large enough share that the remaining players between them had basically no impact on the market.

Re: Excessive EU Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is an American company, but the EU is intent on pushing their laws beyond their borders.

No... Google operates in Europe, has offices and headquarters in Europe, and must thereby follow European law. You do not get to break local laws just because you also have offices somewhere else.