Slashdot Mirror
EU Poised To Fine Google More Than $1 Billion in Antitrust Case (marketwatch.com)
Google is braced for a fine of potentially more than 1bn euro ($1.18 billion) as Brussels prepares to make the first of three antitrust decisions on the search group's practices, the first sanction by a leading competition regulator on the way it operates. From a report: The penalty, expected to be announced in the coming weeks, could exceed the record 1.1 billion euro bill slapped on Intel, in 2009 for anti-competitive behavior in the computer-chip market, the two people told The Times. The European Commission's antitrust body declined to comment to MarketWatch on the FT report, but referred to the latest steps taken in the case against Google. In July last year, the commission reiterated its conclusion that the search giant had "abused its dominant position by systematically favoring its comparison shopping service in its search result pages." Google and its parent company Alphabet were then given 10 weeks to respond to the findings. Reuters reported last month that Google had attempted to settle the dispute with the EU three times in the last six years, but the sides had failed to reach a compromise.
systematically favoring its comparison shopping service in its search result pages.
I have problems with Google, but .... fining them for favoring its own shopping service? Come on. It's their search engine, and their shopping service, and I don't like it and don't use it. Easy enough.
What they need to be fined for is collecting data on people who are NOT their customers and turning the entire web not to mention email into a giant surveillance network with Google trackers embedded everywhere. Most people have no idea how to avoid the Google Big Data Machine even if they are trying to avoid all Google products and services and have never signed up for anything with Google.
Fine them for that, not for merely favoring their own services.
Is the EU trying to make the #1 search for the term "EU" return the phrase "money grubbing whores?" Because this is how you end up with "money grubbing whores" as the #1 result when you search for "EU."
Just saying...
I didn't read up on the specifics of this one, but I don't believe I agree with this, from what I do know. Intel, Microsoft, etc. certainly deserved the judgments they received. But in this case, no one has to use Google. Nor is it a product anyone necessary pays for (monetarily at least). There are other search engines and anyone is free to use them. Google just did a much better job than anyone else. If someone doesn't like the results that they point them to, they can use Bing or something else.
It's not nearly enough, considering the depth of GOOG/Doubleclick hubris & arrogance. Their execs and leadershit should be punished as well.
Hey which big company has money that we can take...
>> Google had attempted to settle the dispute with the EU three times in the last six years
If Google had better lawyers, maybe their attempt to drag this out without resolution would have extended past ten years rather than a mere six.
All I have to say about that; good. Maybe its enough to kill them off and RISC-V can come along. Fuck Intel; fuck x86.
Isn't making Google pay for this traffic a violation of Net Neutrality?
we were #1 in search ranking for our topic for 10 years until we refused to join googoo ad sense, eventually disappearing from goo searches... buyassed gottiesqe advertising co. is our take on IT.. industrial strength deception continues for all of US.. cease fire stand down.. thanks again
Why comment, if you don't need to convince anyone — neither beyond reasonable doubt nor even on the preponderance of evidence?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
People who are not their customers are leeches. Leeches have no rights. You use something for free, you have forfeited any right.
Google is a US company. The EU is going after them solely because of this fact, while domestic firms are given carte blanche. Anti-Americanism sells and keeps the political offices going, so hauling Google, Microsoft, Intel, or a foreign company for another round of kangaroo courts is a way of showing that they "mean business" while keeping business going as usual.
Were Google a German or French company, this never would have happened. In fact, this wouldn't have happened other than it being in retaliation for VW being caught by US enforcement.
Well, first of all, Google and the EU better be clear about which part of Google faces any potential fine, because they won't have too much success trying to fine the Google parent for the alleged acts of its subsidiary. That is a much smaller part of Google. I wish reporters would get this point right in their stories.
Time for Google to block the eu.
Does it take a wide stance? And not in a bathroom stall?
The problem here is that fining Google (or Intel) doesn't help the situation. Google can easily lose a billion bucks settling the suit. But it doesn't change the market, the fine doesn't fix the problem. There needs to be change put into place.
The only way this ruling helps is if the billion dollars goes toward helping smaller businesses to break into the markets Google is manipulating. The court needs to not only stop Google's bad practises, but also do something to encourage other businesses to break into the market to provide more competition.
They should fine Bing for antitrust reasons and promoting a Google monopoly by being so unusably awful.
The Apple case in Ireland and this case as well should indicate to any firm that dealing with the EU, they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.
You're a success? Clearly, you should be punished for that.
You made a deal with a nominally-sovereign EU government? Too bad! It's not the government's fault, it's yours - please pay us $13 billion.
Google: you've developed more or less an entire search/commerce ecosystem that none of the Euro-chauvinist competitors can beat? Certainly, you need to be punished: $1 billion.
Nike, Sanrio, and Universal Studios: you're next!
Frankly, it would be delightful if these firms decided that the EU was no longer a commercially viable market place. Let them search with Qwant, wear Adidas, and use Nokia phones.
-Styopa
1. Wait for US company to become extremely successful.
2. Fine said company for being successful ... oops... for anti-competitive behaviour.
3. PROFIT!
This is really just the Germans getting even for WW2.
No, the bureaucrats are throwing a tantrum over Britain's exit, and are hoping to make back some of the money they were milking the U.K. for.
for maybe a month, maybe longer. Say "ok, fine, we're bad, we'll turn ourselves off" Have at, EU.
I'm guessing revenue loss would exceed the fine, but not by much.
Bing can place ads on TV, radio, web banner ads, newspapers, town criers, door hangars, bill posting. It's not Google's job to advertise for Bing. This is akin to USA Today complaining that the New York Times only advertises their own paper.
Microsoft gets fined a few hundred million dollars for causing real, irreparable damage to a critical world industry for decades, but Google gets fined over a billion dollars because some people couldn't be bothered to scroll down a bit? This is mind-boggling stupidity!
If only! I'm sick and tired of searching for something and getting localized results first.
...your dominant Local Times News is supposed to promote advertising services that the rival (and smaller) Local Picayune Intelligencer provides?
...ask for their money back. Oh, Google is free you say? Then sorry not sorry, you have nothing to complain about.
What a circus. Google isn't forcing anyone to use its search engine. If the EU has such a massive problem with a company promoting it's own businesses in the course of FREE use of its search features, then they can just block Google altogether. Good luck with Bing! I hope Google tells them to F off.
Thou shalt not use tools thou does not understand, lest they rise up and smite thee
The UK hasn't been paying its fair share of contributions for decades. They've been making continuous threats of leaving in order to bargain reduced contributions without a corresponding reduction in subsidies.