Slashdot Mirror
Google Slapped With $2.7 Billion By EU For Skewing Searches (bloomberg.com)
Google suffered a major regulatory blow on Tuesday after European antitrust officials fined the search giant 2.4 billion euros, or $2.7 billion, for unfairly favoring some of its own search services over those of rivals. The European Commission concluded that the search giant abused its near-monopoly in online search to "give illegal advantage" to its own Shopping service. Margrethe Vestager, the EU's competition commissioner, said Google "denied other companies the chance to compete" and left consumers without "genuine choice." The hefty fine marks the latest chapter in a lengthy standoff between Europe and Google, which also faces two separate charges under the region's competition rules related to Android, its popular mobile software, and to some of its advertising products. From a report: Google has 90 days to "stop its illegal conduct" and give equal treatment to rival price-comparison services, according to a binding order from the European Commission on Tuesday. It's up to Google to choose how it does this and it must tell the EU within 60 days of its plans. Failure to comply brings a risk of fines of up to 5 percent of its daily revenue. [...] "I expect the Commission now to swiftly conclude the other two ongoing investigations against Google," Markus Ferber, a member of the European Parliament from Germany. "Unfortunately, the Google case also illustrates that competition cases tend to drag on for far too long before they are eventually resolved. In a fast-moving digital economy this means often enough that market abuse actually pays off and the abuser succeeds in eliminating the competition." Google has been pushing its own comparison shopping service since 2008, systematically giving it prominent placement when people search for an item, the EU said. Rival comparison sites usually only appear on page four of search results, effectively denying them a massive audience as the first page attracts 95 percent of all clicks. In a blog post, Google said the EU has "underestimated" the value Google's services brings to the table. "We believe the European Commission's online shopping decision underestimates the value of those kinds of fast and easy connections. While some comparison shopping sites naturally want Google to show them more prominently, our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. We think our current shopping results are useful and are a much-improved version of the text-only ads we showed a decade ago. Showing ads that include pictures, ratings, and prices benefits us, our advertisers, and most of all, our users. And we show them only when your feedback tells us they are relevant. Thousands of European merchants use these ads to compete with larger companies like Amazon and eBay. [...] Given the evidence, we respectfully disagree with the conclusions announced today. We will review the Commission's decision in detail as we consider an appeal, and we look forward to continuing to make our case," wrote Kent Walker, SVP and General Counsel at Google.
I'm not sure how this one works. Google can find information, in this case about products. Searching for a product would normally just bring up Amazon, and skip the price comparison altogether. Is Google just not allowed to supply this service?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Have you tried reading the article ? It explains it right here:
Today's Decision concludes that Google is dominant in general internet search markets throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA countries. It found Google to have been dominant in general internet search markets in all EEA countries since 2008, except in the Czech Republic where the Decision has established dominance since 2011. This assessment is based on the fact that Google's search engine has held very high market shares in all EEA countries, exceeding 90% in most
The French term is "abus de position dominante", in which case it translates into anything youd do where you're trying to kill off competition by using a large market share. Not the same as a monopoly. /. being more supportive of that particular decision back then...
I believe it is the same laws that got MS fined regarding the IE situation a few years ago. I remember
But which law is broken? If they don't have monopoly, they aren't abusing a monopoly.
The law is against abusing a dominant market position. Arguing whether a monopoly has to be absolutely total is irrelevant.
Here's your citation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...
My emphasis in the following:
Article 102
(ex Article 82 TEC)
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
You are not punished for a monopoly or nearly a monopoly; neither of those things is illegal. They are punished for abusing a dominant market position: being a near-monopoly is one way to have a dominant market position.
Monopolies aren't illegal. Its abusing your dominant position that's illegal (like using your monopoly on search results to push your other products above those of your competitors).
Google "denied other companies the chance to compete" and left consumers without "genuine choice."
We should start right there. Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Once upon a time a European country making a fuss about anything was yawn worthy for a large, multinational corporation.
Here's a $2.7 billion fine - that time of regulatory commissions having no teeth is over.
I know I know...when the UK leaves the EU it can have it's fat politicians bribed for peanuts in comparison and bent over by such a large company also because it will be desperate for tax revenue...but for now let's enjoy the regulatory muscle provided by "unelected officials".
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
how is google showing up in a google search abuse? Will they fine Amazon for having amazon sales show up in amazon search?
Amazon doesn't have market dominance in search, so that's not relevant.
Suppose that 90% of all washing machines sold in the EU were Bosch washing machines. They would have market dominance.
Then, suppose Bosch announced that you would void your warranty unless you used Bosch branded detergent. That would be an abuse of dominant market position - muscling in on the detergent market by leveraging dominance in washing machines.
Google is being accused of muscling in on the price-comparison market by leveraging the dominance in internet website search.
Imagine if Google decided to get into the used car business, an all of a sudden searches for "used 2010 Hondo Civic" returned results from Google dealers at the top, and other dealers a surprisingly long way down. That would be seen by many as abuse of market position.
You could argue that in a free market, people will just stop using Google to search, and will start looking for new cars in Bing, and order will be restored to the world. Many people in Europe have less faith in the market's ability to just correct these sorts of things.
-----
I live in Finland which is part of EU. I haven't even heard about this Google Shopping before. Is this feature shown only in some countries?
I tried disabling ad blocker and still couldn't get anything like that to appear. I even googled for "Google Shopping" and while the main page of it loads, it doesn't show any products when I try to click some of the categories or when I try to search products.
'Cut a check' is a long established idiom. Welcome to English.
No that's American. In English it's cheque
(ducks)!
Many people in Europe have less faith in the market's ability to just correct these sorts of things.
And there are plenty of examples in the US, where the markets don't correct. The topic of crappy internet providers is almost a weekly item here.
Well it isn't a monopoly. We have Microsoft Bing as a search alternative. If Google Were to go out of business and close its doors, They are companies and services that could pick right up.
EU doesn't always attack US Companies. However it would be naive to think that the EU won't take care of its self interests before a non member countries.
Free market to an extent is still needed otherwise the push to innovate will diminish. European built products are normally known for its quality, however not for its innovation. So when a brand new game changer innovation comes out from an other country, US, Japan, China, India... Europe tends to get very defensive about it, until they can make their much nicer version of it.
But where is the European Premium Google alternative? China has Alibaba.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Dominance is still not a monopoly. They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance. That still does not equal a monopoly.
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Germany is a founding member of the EU (and it's predecessors). There is no general anti-EU sentiment in Germany. Germany is one of the least-likely candidates to leave the EU.
since when has a dominant position been dependent in the US or Europe on being a public service? Google do owe something to their customers (which is NOT YOU), it is the people they sell advertising too, you are merely their product and irrelevant to the discussion. Those buying advertising have a right not to be abused by someone that has a near monopoly on the market to the point where they have no choice to use them if they want effective advertising.
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance
That's great, and the EU is not having a problem with that at all.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
The law doesn't require you to have a monopoly to be guilty of abusing a monopoly position. It requires you to be dominant.
Slashdot poster: It is perfectly reasonably for any Euro or Asian country to have economic protectionism to protect their companies and the jobs of their citizens.
Slashdot Community: Preach to me sister! Mod that dude up to the sky!!!!!!!!!!!
Trump: It is stupid for America to continually enter one sided trade deals where the other country uses protectionism, and our companies get savaged. We need to start thinking of America first and use protections when they do.
Slashdot Community: Trump and ALL his ideas are evil, even if it matches conventional wisdom on these forums. Mod anyone down who agrees with him, and kill their pets too!!!!!!
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Here is how the google shopping idea works.
Say you are in the mood to buy a new chair. You go and google 'chair price' or something like that. Several options show up. As it turns out, google favors companies that sell chairs and pay for google advertising. They may not be the most famous company, the best reviewed company, etc. but they will get top billing.
When confronted with a long list, human nature is such that you choose something near the top. We are all lazy and who wants to read that much unnecessary stuff. This makes primacy pretty powerful in a search list. That said, technically google will display non-advertising vendors too, just further down the page or on the dreaded page two.
Keep in mind google also does this for most things, including news services or political discussions that it favors, to shape public opinion. How you are mass manipulated without your awareness is a deep and profound discussion, but that should be saved for another day. Walk before you run grasshopper.
Getting back to the point, google also shapes your searches by 'reading' your gmail and creating profiles about stuff that you have searched. Sadly, by this point, google knows more about you than many of your friends. It will place advertisements on web pages related to what it knows about you. It will also order your search hits based upon what it knows about you.
Keep in mind, nothing is for free. Many people enjoy their "free" browser, "free" email, and "free" search engine without giving a moments thought about how google gives away everything but yet still pays all those California engineers six figure salaries. A wise man once said to me:
"If there is no price on something, then you are the product."
Hope this helps some.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
One might almost infer that the EU is anti business, or ...anti non-EU business, or...(if one really has the tinfoil hat) anti-US-business.
Trump's a buffoon for wanting to raise protectionist barriers, but the EU deep-pocket-fining US businesses mainly for being successful (particularly in fields where EU businesses are struggling or don't exist) is *just* as stupid.
Hey, I guess it's one way to raise the funds to bail out the monetary union, once the German taxpayers ever get tired of footing the bill for the whole damned thing, right?
Hint: turns out you can't simply bolt the Drachma (or the Lira, or the Peseta) to the Deutsche Mark and get ... a Deutsche Mark. Funny, that.
-Styopa
the EU does its best to keep the playing field level in markets, nothing more, nothing less.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance
That's great, and the EU is not having a problem with that at all.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
In other words Google is basically doing what Microsoft did and that caused Slashdot nerds to go nuts and write long angry tirades where Microsoft was spelled with a $ sign. Interestingly now that the boot is on the other foot and Google is the anti competitive monopolist those same people are defending the monopolist with tooth and claw. To me swapping one monopoly for another is nothing more than moving from the fire into the frying pan.
Well it isn't a monopoly. We have Microsoft Bing as a search alternative.
The existence of an alternative doesn't define a monopoly. Market power does. Bing has a horrendously low market share given the marketing power behind it. People don't use it just because it's there and that gives google a great deal of power. Even the name of the search engine is used as a verb. Let's not pretend that users won't put up with an incredible amount of abuse before changing especially given Google search's integration with other services and devices.