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.

51 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. right target, wrong reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:right target, wrong reason. by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have problems with Google, but .... fining them for favoring its own shopping service?

      Usually the argument is that if you are legally considered a monopoly (which Google probably is under EU law) then it is illegal for you to use your monopoly position in that area to promote or favor your other products or business areas. It's essentially the same thing that Microsoft ran afoul of with IE that led to requirements by the EU that Windows users would be able to select which browser they wanted to use when installing Windows. Whether or not you agree with that law, it is still the law that companies are required to abide by.

    2. Re:right target, wrong reason. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the abuse of a dominant position in a field in an attempt to gain a dominant position in another field.

      Think Microsoft trying to push IE and IIS onto everyone and getting away with it because they are the dominant OS. This is anti-competitive and anti-capitalist. The capitalist model requires competition to ensure better product eliminate inferior ones. Propping up a mediocre product with a dominant market position in another market to make it that way competitive to a superior product should go against everything any liberal or capitalist minded person stands for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:right target, wrong reason. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      takes next to no time to switch your search engine away from Google. That's maybe 8 seconds and a few mouse clicks -> done.

      There is no incentive for computer users to switch to another search engine, because they are not the ones suffering from Google's abuse of dominance. It's the competing companies that suffer, and they can't tell their potential customers to use a different search engine.

    4. Re:right target, wrong reason. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      But unlike IE where OEM's where forced to keep other browsers off the initial desktop while IE was prominently placed on every Windows desktop. Most computers come with the preinstalled browsers pointing to google's competitors. Similarly most ISP's try to get you to point your browser to other search engines as do many apps on install. In fact except for when you install Chrome you have to specifically choose to change your default to Google.

      Google does not have a monopoly, there are several very capable alternatives.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:right target, wrong reason. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Google does not have a monopoly, there are several very capable alternatives.

      Google has over 90% market share in Europe, which is a defacto monopoly. And according to EU law, a company with such a dominant position may not abuse that in order to gain market share in other areas.

    6. Re: right target, wrong reason. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Imagine if Microsoft's browser decided to take any search results for Chrome, Firefox, or other browsers and discard them or display its own results as a priority. I would imagine that most people don't know the actual website to get Chrome, they just fire up IE and search for it instead. Similarly, there are a lot of people who don't know the websites, or even if they do just enter the URL. Imagine if not just searching for "plane tickets", but also "Expedia", "Travelocity", or any of the other popular sites all returned Google's service as a first result instead of the actual website of that company.

      Yes, most people on this website are savvy enough to navigate around that behavior and get what they actually want, just like they'll get around DRM, etc. as necessary. However, most people aren't that knowledgeable or possibly even capable of becoming sufficiently so. Consumer protection laws are there to protect the average consumer, or maybe even the lowest common denominator type ones.

    7. Re:right target, wrong reason. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That's simply because they have the best search engine. People are free to use whichever search engine they want, and there is no pain in switching except for the inferior results you will receive from other search engines. This isn't the same as a browser or OS where they are somehow locking you into the search engine. Using a different search engine is extremely simple. If you could force people to use a search engine then MS would have the dominant position with Bing. But people are simply choosing the best.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:right target, wrong reason. by magarity · · Score: 1

      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

      Not only this but two stories older is Amazon patenting using their store wifi to outright block people from even checking someone else's shopping service. Are they not paying attention to the Google case or what?

    9. Re:right target, wrong reason. by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Read a few messages up this thread: the problem is not for the users. The problem is for Google's competitors on other services, who don't get to play on a level playing field because Google is promoting their own services over theirs.

      For instance, if I search for 'maps' on Google here on a European google server, I don't see a result for 'bing maps' on the first couple of pages. Based on those results, I wouldn't even know bing maps existed. On the other hand, google maps is returned as the first and second result.

    10. Re:right target, wrong reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the competing companies that suffer

      They are more than welcome to start up their own competing search engine, then.

      In fact, many people would probably welcome that.

    11. Re:right target, wrong reason. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      They are more than welcome to start up their own competing search engine, then.

      So, if Google buys up a hotel chain, and hides search results from competing hotels, the nice little family owned hotel here in town needs to make their own global search engine ? That's your answer ?

    12. Re:right target, wrong reason. by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      You don't have to look at them, do you? Has anyone got a gun to your back, urging you to look at them?

    13. Re: right target, wrong reason. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why is browser software different from the calculator or the character map or anything else?

      It's not. Part of the anti-trust is that someone needs to actually bring a case to the courts about it. The Association for Crappy and Useless Calculator Apps wasn't interested in spending money on the case.

    14. Re: right target, wrong reason. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "If I can get online to the internet and I don't have a browser how can I possibly download an alternative browser?"

      Back when I worked for an ISP, the instructions for new customers included how to use FTP to get Netscape.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    15. Re: right target, wrong reason. by tsa · · Score: 1

      I know people who fire up IE, which then starts up with Google as the home page, type the url of the site they want to visit in the search engine (for instance amazon.com), press enter and then click the first link that Google shows.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    16. Re:right target, wrong reason. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You do? I didn't even know that option exists.

      I think it's time to fine GM and Toyota. You should sue.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:right target, wrong reason. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The accumulation of capital is, funny enough, an attempt to eliminate the market regulations that capitalism provides.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: right target, wrong reason. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Take a wild guess who'll be next on the EU chopping block. They're already being minced for their telemetry, more fuel is only going to make the cake sweeter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:right target, wrong reason. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's our post-capitalist model. In a truly, fully capitalist society, you can't even make a profit anymore because the market would not allow it.

      We'er not in a capitalist society, though. Capitalism is much like communism. A nice idea, but it's never been fully realized, only flawed versions ever existed. The flaws in real existing capitalism are just less damning to the system.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re: right target, wrong reason. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Windows was dominant from the start because MSDOS was dominant.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  2. Unintentended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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...

    1. Re:Unintentended Consequences by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In Google search? You don't say...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Unintentended Consequences by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that "EU" will now equal "money grubbing whores"? Because other "money grubbing whores" may not be part of the "EU".

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    3. Re:Unintentended Consequences by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Yes, clearly corporations being forced to abide by the unjust law is unacceptable. Something should be done!
      FTFY.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. Not sure... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Not sure... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nobody has to use MS, the alternative is actually free. You also don't have to use IE, every single alternative is free AND has no drawback (unlike Linux, where you could at least argue that software for Windows doesn't run easily on it).

      So what's different with Google again?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Not sure... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      But in this case, no one has to use Google.

      But it is the dominant search engine, and that's what the EU uses as a criterium.

    3. Re:Not sure... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      That means they are happy with the deal, including the results Google delivers, including promoting other Google services.

      How is the user supposed to know that a company he is not aware of, is not returned in the search results ?

    4. Re:Not sure... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nobody has to use MS, the alternative is actually free. You also don't have to use IE, every single alternative is free AND has no drawback

      Wrong on both counts. People have to use MS to interoperate with other people who use MS. This sometimes still includes governments. And there is a drawback to non-IE browsers, or at least there was: ActiveX support, which was needed for many sites to function. And that's a problem which was deliberately created by Microsoft, by abusing their market position.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Not sure... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Like the drawback of not using Google so the Google-login doesn't work? There are quite some advantages in convenience if you stay in the "Google Family".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Another EU money grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey which big company has money that we can take...

    1. Re:Another EU money grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The EU did not choose that Google would violate antitrust laws. Google did.

    2. Re:Another EU money grab by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The EU did choose to violate human rights by creating antitrust laws.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  5. Google needs better lawyers by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> 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.

  6. Net Neutrality by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Isn't making Google pay for this traffic a violation of Net Neutrality?

  7. No judge, no jury by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The European Commission's antitrust body declined to comment

    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.
  8. not all of Google by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:not all of Google by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      It's technically correct. Google is the search company, the parent is Alphabet (one of the stupidest corporate names ever). The suit is against Google, not Alphabet.

  9. Re: The EU loves kangaroo courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The EU is a joke to everyone not in the EU. The sooner that whole thing implodes, the better.

  10. Another solution by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    They should fine Bing for antitrust reasons and promoting a Google monopoly by being so unusably awful.

  11. No settlement possible by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    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. Re:No settlement possible by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

      any firm that dealing with the EU, they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.

      Only if they choose to break the law.

    2. Re:No settlement possible by Avarist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.

      Are you trying to say they should be fined 50€ instead?.

      Do you know what the purpose of a fine is? It is to dissuade such behaviour. If the fine is not directly proportional to the size of their wallet, they either get crushed if it's too high, or don't care at all and continue if it's too small.

      --
      In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    3. Re:No settlement possible by tsa · · Score: 1

      What makes the EU different from American politics is that the EU is there for the people. So companies can not easily buy laws that make them get away with screwing their customers by bribing congresspeople like in the US. This means that if a company breaks EU law they are likely to be sued and fined, which is great for the European people because they get good products and service for fair prices.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  12. Re:WW2 revenge by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:The EU loves kangaroo courts by Muros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is a US company. The EU is going after them solely because of this fact, while domestic firms are given carte blanche

    Absolutely true. Just look at the list of companies that have had antitrust rulings against them. Daimler, DAF, Saint-Gobain, Philips, Renault, Iveco, Siemens, Deutsche Bank.... None of these companies would have been ruled against if they were from the EU.

  14. Re:So then advertise. by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    It's not Google's job to advertise for Bing.

    Google's job is to index the web, and return relevant search results based on a fair algorithm. Hiding bing maps on the bottom of the 9th page (I finally found it), is not doing its job.

    This is akin to USA Today complaining that the New York Times only advertises their own paper.

    That's not the issue. The problem is not Google advertising their own search engine. The problem is abusing their dominant search engine to promote other business interests they own.

  15. Outrageous by StormReaver · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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!

  16. Re: The EU loves kangaroo courts by tsa · · Score: 1

    They modded you down because you made a stupid remark.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  17. Use a different search engine by ladydi89 · · Score: 1

    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