Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Record Fine of $2.8 Billion Was a 'Deterrent,' EU Says (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the making-an-example dept.

The European Union was aiming for a "deterrent effect" on Google and other technology giants when it ordered the Android-maker to pay 2.4 billion euros ($2.8 billion) for breaching antitrust law over how it displays shopping ads. From a report: Regulators weighed "the need to ensure that the fine has a sufficiently deterrent effect not only on Google and Alphabet but also on undertakings of a similar size and with similar resources," the European Commission said in a 215-page document laying out details of its seven-year investigation into the company. The "particularly large" revenue of Google's parent, Alphabet, also determined the size of the fine, the EU said. The penalty, levied in June, was more than double an earlier 1 billion-euro fine on Intel and came with a threat of more daily fines for Google if it didn't comply with an order to offer equal treatment to rival shopping-comparison services. Big numbers for big technology names have been a theme for EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who ordered Apple Inc. to pay back some 13 billion euros in taxes last year.

71 comments

  1. Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Now, if Google were a German or French company, would the EU hound them as constantly? Quite doubtful. When in doubt, do some anti-American xenophobia, as it will keep you in power.

    Wish the EU would police themselves as much as they drag foreign companies for kangaroo court trials.

    1. Re: Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically itâ(TM)s revenge for the whole Dieselgate thing. Lest we forget, Volkswagen AG is partially state-owned.

      We shake down the EU and its companies, they reciprocate, life goes on...

    2. Re:Show trials do sell... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, if Google were a German or French company, would the EU hound them as constantly? Quite doubtful.

      Likely even more so. Aggregate data on individuals, for example, cannot be stored in databases in Europe without obtaining permission. Anyone would be entitled to have all their data removed from Google's databases, no matter where in the world they live. And worker's rights world-wide would be under regulation of where the company is headquartered. News it provides would have to hide the identity of any suspects not convicted. And much more, which is perfectly fine in the US, but not accepted in Europe.
      Google gets the kids glove treatment precisely because it's not a European company.

    3. Re:Show trials do sell... by zlives · · Score: 1

      oh you, with your logic and stuff. its clear that VW AG was a US company it would totally be out of business like all the banks and GM and Chrysler. I mean its not VW is totally not TOO big to fail because if it were, then we the tax payers would give it all the cash it needed and virgin sacrifices to boot. and then call it a victory.

    4. Re:Show trials do sell... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They are going after Ikea as well.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Show trials do sell... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      What is the German or French equivalent to google?
      Or any Modern Tech Companies?

      Perhaps the EU Rules are a bit too strict for that particular market?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't care that much about microsoft they got small fee and a don't do it again

    7. Re: Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if Google were a German or French company, would the EU hound them as constantly?

      Of course. The EU is not the US. The same rules apply to everyone in Europe.

    8. Re: Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European companies tend to focus more on actual technology than on 'tech' (i.e., online services).

    9. Re: Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not virgins... hookers and cocaine... oh wait... nevermind... I was confusing the U.S. government with business again.

    10. Re:Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germans tend to focus on manufacturing real goods rather than just selling off people's private data.

    11. Re:Show trials do sell... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Mostly correct, except for the bit about hiding the accused's name. Some countries have that, many don't.

      It's a shame it's not Europe wide.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: Show trials do sell... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Ok, examples of new tech?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re: Show trials do sell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autonomous vehicles, advanced solar cells, advanced robotics, extreme ultraviolet lithography, medical imaging, nuclear fusion, efficient windmills, advances in materials science, structural engineering, medicine and chemical processes etc.

  2. You donâ(TM)t really think they will pay do y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That 2.8 billion, if ever actually paid on will be more like a couple hundred million.

  3. So they noticed... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad someone (even if it's the EU, not the US) caught on. Fines that can be paid as a standard part of doing business are an expense, not a deterrent.

    I honestly don't know if this fine is significant enough to actually defer Google.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:So they noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enough to actually defer Google.

      You're a madman and I love it
      My favorite movie from the past 3 years was guardians of the galaxy 2

    2. Re:So they noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A colleague of mine worked for a company here in the US that did extreme B1/B2 visa abuse. They would have people man their offices, fresh off the boat from India, and every 3-6 months, ship them all back, and bring in another boatload. The fines? Part of doing business, because it was cheaper to pay the relatively tiny fines than it is to actually play the game.

      I wish the EU would actually do some serious fines, and do it often. The GDPR may be the only thing that might companies even consider spending money for security-related items.

    3. Re:So they noticed... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This shouldn't be news. If the fine weren't intended to act as a deterrent then that would raise the question of precisely what it is intended for. Deterring companies from breaking the law is the reason that we have punishments for companies breaking the law.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Is it just me, or is the EU keeping the lights on by shaking down US tech companies?

    Also, big fat [Citation Needed] to show that this fine was a "deterrent" in any way for Google. Have they actually changed anything? Did they make more in revenue during the time they were allegedly violating regulations than this fine hit them for?

    1. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have laws and enforce them; unlike the US which only really enforces its rule of law on the little guys. Don't act like this is a shakedown. This is the consequence for violating the rule of law in a non-corrupt place. Say what you will about the content of those laws; but at least, in Europe, the rule of law stands. Wish I could say the same for the US.

    2. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by GregMmm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seriously, did you just relate non-corrupt with the European Union? I do agree they have to level a huge fine for a company like Google, but it's really interesting how they just hit all the huge tech companies that have.... MONEY!!

    3. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike in the US, we really don't like monopolies...

    4. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-corrupt and the EU really don't go together. It may be not as obvious as the US and the money trails, but the EU has their own domestic puppet masters who control what parties get the dogs sicced on them, and whom gets carte blanche.

    5. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, did you just relate non-corrupt with the European Union? I do agree they have to level a huge fine for a company like Google, but it's really interesting how they just hit all the huge tech companies that have.... MONEY!!

      No, they hit the companies that have offices or customers in Europe.
      In general, smaller companies can ill afford to challenge the rules, and follow them. But there are plenty of examples of smaller companies being hit too, when they try to get around the laws.

    6. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might want to take a look at the list of companies that have been the subject of antitrust and data protection fines in the EU. Spoiler: Most of them are neither tech companies, nor based in the US. The US tech companies are the ones that make the news because the fines are typically in proportion to the company size and most people will both have heard of these companies and be impressed by the big number of the fine.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the EU where the largest telecom in the world (vodafone) is based? Quick search corrects me, they're only the second largest by number of connections in the world. Half a billion subscribers, they're as much of a monopoly as Google is. I could bring up VW as well. Or how about Ericsson. Airbus? I'm sure I could bring up a few more that are at least as much of a monopoly based out of the EU as Google is.

    8. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the US is a relatively non-corrupt country too. I wish we were tougher on corporate misdeeds, as they have a real negative effect on society. In this way, we are more corrupt. There are almost certainly corruptions that are deeper in Europe than the US.

    9. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it because these large corporations are too used to buying off politicians in the USA and being able to do what they like. Then when they go to Europe they actually have to obey local laws, shock horror.

      https://www.businessinsider.com.au/countries-less-corrupt-than-the-united-states-2011-12?r=US&IR=T#22-chile-is-world-renown-for-its-government-corruption-1

      The USA is the 23rd most corrupt country in the world.

    10. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are any of the companies you just listed monopolies? Monopoly has nothing to do with amount of customers worldwide. VW is not the only seller of cars in Europe or even close to having a monopoly. Ericsson is in heavy competition with Huawei for 4G and 5G equipment. Airbus is in heavy competition with Boeing...

      Meanwhile Google is by far the most used search engine and "to google" something is synonymous with searching for something.

    11. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by LesFerg · · Score: 2

      But Google is not and has never been the only search engine available.

      People choose to use Google.

      Sure, lots of people like to point out that some device users just purchased a device and it was the default search tool installed on it, but they have no right to complain about the company behind it if they never took the time to research it and/or switch to another search provider.

      It's like if I put a hammer on a stand on the roadside with a sign saying "Hit yourself on the head with this hammer for free!", then somebody came along, hit themselves on the head, then went running for a lawyer because my free hammer harmed them.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    12. Re: That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's you. Firstly, the overwhelming majority of companies that ever received a fine from Brussels are European. Secondly, the proceeds of fines are subtracted from the member state contributions, so they don't actually add to the EU's budget.

    13. Re:That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopoly does not mean "only one" you tool. Google has by a long way the largest share of the market. They are utterly dominant in search. That is a monopoly.
      Derrrrr.

    14. Re: That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously believe that?

    15. Re: That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those companies has a monopoly

    16. Re: That's a nice tech company you have... by houghi · · Score: 2

      They go after plenty of larger European companies as well and fine them. Most of the time they stop doing illegal shit after the first warning.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re: That's a nice tech company you have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the privacy authorities in each european country also actively goes after smaller companies and in fact the government itself.

      All their formal enquiries are publicly available and contain parties they 'go after' ranging from municipalities, utilities, multinationals, government, recruiters and everything else ánd the kitchen sink.

  5. I like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you commit a crime you should be paying restitution. If you're a massive multinational corporation and you have massive assets, that restitution should be enough to notice.

    Otherwise there's no point in a fine at all, if it's so low that it doesn't cause them enough pain to readdress their actions. So I say bravo.

    1. Re:I like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about that. Let's take a simpler example: a $100 fine for dumping a garbage bag on Times Square. That amount is enough to pay for cleanup and some more. If some company keeps dumping garbage bags there, at $100 a pop the city should welcome it. Clearly the fine is not high enough to deter the company, but there is no need to deter because the fines are a cash cow -- more than enough money to compensate for the company's behavior.

    2. Re:I like it. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I know that it may be a hard concept for many capitalists, but in some parts of the world, it would be preferable to not see dumped garbage bags on the street over getting paid handsomely when it occurs.

      In the US, rich people can break laws with impunity because they can afford to pay the (for them) small fines. In most of Europe, the fine will be determined based on your wealth, so one man might get a $200 speeding ticket and another $20,000. That deters both of them, and the end result is that the number of people who speed goes down, not just the number of lower income people who speed. Or litter. Or any other regulations, including those that Google failed to obey.

    3. Re:I like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is idiotic. If the passenger in my car is suddenly very sick, then speeding to the hospital makes sense as I decide that increasing his chances of survival is more important than the speeding fine. Why should I have to pay a higher fine to rush my passenger to the hospital if I'm rich?

      There are more subtle cases, like a doctor driving fast to the airport to catch a flight to a medical conference that, if missed by the doctor, would probably cost more lives than it would save in expectation by not speeding and missing the flight.

      Fines should compensate the harm of breaking the law, and then people can judge if what they're trying to accomplish is more important than not breaking the law. Wealth shouldn't be a factor.

    4. Re:I like it. by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is idiotic. If the passenger in my car is suddenly very sick, then speeding to the hospital makes sense as I decide that increasing his chances of survival is more important than the speeding fine. Why should I have to pay a higher fine to rush my passenger to the hospital if I'm rich?

      Because the threshold for breaking the law is lower if you're rich and the fines are the same.

      Turn it around - why should a poor person be afraid of being stopped because the ticket for him would be devastating, while a rich person doesn't have the same concern, because the ticket would be negligible for him?

      It should deter the rich person and the poor person just as much. When the fine is half a paycheck for one person and not even noticed for another, the determent is not the same.

      Wealth shouldn't be a factor.

      Exactly. Which is why the fines must hit everyone equally hard, not equal amounts, because then wealth is a factor.

    5. Re:I like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is idiotic. If the passenger in my car is suddenly very sick, then speeding to the hospital makes sense as I decide that increasing his chances of survival is more important than the speeding fine. Why should I have to pay a higher fine to rush my passenger to the hospital if I'm rich?

      First things first: if, in an emergency, you're even thinking about financial cost vs. saving a life you're a terrible excuse for a human being.

      As to a fine one of one things will happen:

      - You will be pulled over by the police and then escorted to the hospital at a safe speed.

      - You will be fined, whether by a camera or by the police officer who has just finished administering first aid until the ambulance arrived.

      In the second situation you can appeal to a court (that's what they're for) and let it decide whether your speed was justified.

    6. Re:I like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more subtle cases, like a doctor driving fast to the airport to catch a flight to a medical conference that, if missed by the doctor, would probably cost more lives than it would save in expectation by not speeding and missing the flight.

      WTF? What is the weather like in your parallel universe? How about the doctor tries leaving ample time to catch their flight? No judge would accept that as an excuse as it is simply piss weak.

    7. Re:I like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I have to pay a higher fine to rush my passenger to the hospital if I'm rich?

      You don't. Saving a life in an emergency trumps most other laws, so no - you won't be punished for speeding. Or for ignoring red lights. Or even for stealing the car needed to rush someone to hospital. You may have to prove in court that the emergency was real though.

  6. EU Money Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU has been having several such money grabs. They have found a money stream in big companies and find any reason to grab some funds. Google is their personal ATM!

    1. Re:EU Money Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have to wonder, how can so many people be such corporate whores? Do you actually think you will ever have that kind of cash, that you already need to try to justify your greed?

    2. Re:EU Money Grab by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Google is free to not do business in the EU, or other places where they don't want to abide by the laws and regulations.

      Fines in Europe are generally based on the income of the fined, and this is no secret.

  7. Re: You donâ(TM)t really think they will pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you don't want it to be paid. They were ordered to pay up. It's not a debatable figure.

  8. Pah! That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple of clicks on some cdreimer videos and pretty soon you're talking billions!

  9. Train Derailment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole Amtrak derailment is a pretty fitting metaphor for the Trump administration, is it not?

    one mod up = one prayer

  10. Similar Deterrent Political Antitrust by mfh · · Score: 1

    Antitrust is whenever a business performs unfair/underhanded actions that result in hurting competitors or society in a way that is outside "the norm".

    Well it could be argued then that political parties that lie in politics are doing the same thing to their competitors. Anything illegal could be lumped into this kind of strategy, no?

    I think we'd solve a LOT of problems we're facing this way. Then each party locks into their platform and whoeverso is elected must execute each promise within their term, or face fines for political antitrust.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Similar Deterrent Political Antitrust by Xest · · Score: 1

      A better solution is to just get rid of parties.

      Democracies like the UK's and the US' which are representative democracies are supposed to be about having local representatives to push local issues such that respective parliaments come up with consensus that are at least palatable to a majority.

      Parties are an affront to that, because they require that representatives override the local interest with party interest where there is a clash.

      So in countries like the US or UK, we either need to ban parties or alliances so that we have the representative democracies we're supposed to have, or we need to get rid of representative democracy and replace it with proportional democracy using true proportionally representative electoral systems.

      This current half way house is the worst of both worlds for citizens because they get neither the benefits of representatives, nor the benefits of proportional representation - a representative that ignores his base in favour of the party line is no representative at all, and a system whereby a party with only 33% of the vote but 100% of the power which happens in the UK sometime cannot reasonably called a democracy in the truest sense. That's why there's so much political disenfranchisement in the US and UK in the first place - people are fed up that their votes aren't really worth jack shit - there's a reason May's and Trump's approval ratings are in the 30s and that's because it's only an absolute minority wanted them, but the party system ends up installing them into positions of power disproportionately higher than is democratically warranted. Really, it's not that people wanted Hillary instead, it's that people wanted none of the above, but the broken democratic systems of the UK and US tend towards two party politics which leaves the vast majority of the population without someone that they're really, truly, fairly happy with.

      If you really want democracy to be healthy then under a representative system ALL representatives should be independents, or under a party system ALL elections should run on a truly proportional representation system. Anything else is just an anti-democratic fudge designed to reduce the say of the voting population in favour of the most organised minority. That's ultimately an affront to democracy as democracy is supposed to be about giving people a voice, not taking it away from the majority and handing it only to an absolute minority.

  11. Nah, but the US would. And that is fine too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a human, and therefore the opposite and natural victim of psychopathic corporatism, I apporove in any case.

    Because remember: Those corporations pay those fines because they harmed us.

    Is the fairy tale of the brave little tailor known in the US?
    (Basically, he wins against two giants who threaten him, by tricking them to fight against each other.)

    1. Re:Nah, but the US would. And that is fine too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there was a Mickey Mouse version.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_Little_Tailor

      Speaking of corporations taking advantage of things...

  12. THEY COMITTED A CRIME!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously... the level of brainwashing in the US is staggering!

    You side with your sworn enemies, whose literal business plan is, to relieve you of everything you have, while ideally giving you as little in return as posssibe, and then hurt you in some sleazy way on top of it, just to masturbate their power genitals.
    Even when they literally comitted a crime!!

    What's next? Arguing FOR mchanized mass murder, if done by corporations?
    Oh wait! You already did that years ago!

    Just to be perfectly frank: From the rest of the world, most US Americans look just as deluded and brainwashed as most North Koreans. And your CEO (because let's face it, that's what he is) is just as insane.
    The onl difference: You actually *got* nukes. *And* you are the only country ont he planet, insane enough to actually use them. (Not just for tests.)

    And you know what? I'm still not gonna hate you one bit! I'm gonna treeat you real nice. Precisely because I do not want to be like that.

  13. You do realize the difference between ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking something from someone, and taking something *back* from someone, yes?

    Why are you arguine against your won side, btw?
    Yes, the government is supposed to be YOUR side in this battle!
    Yeah, I know this is not the case in the US... precisely because your "government" IS the corporations now!
    And so the corporations manage to blame the few who fight on your side, for the very harm they fight against, done BY thise corporations.

    And you COMPLETE MORON side with your own enemies!

    IN WW2, you'd be at the front, shooting at your own comrades, blaming them for killing your comrades, because you are too stupid to tell the Nazi moles from your own friends!

  14. Stupid mobile phone virtual keyboard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nevermind the typos.

    Thanks to morons buying retarded touchscreen smartphones with no actual keyboard, we now all are forced to have a choice between beint treated like a retard by autocorrect, or being driven insane by the shitty tiny touch areas of screen keyboards.

    THANKS A FUCKIN LOT!

  15. $2.8 Billion by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon your talking about real money.

  16. At that level only Jail is a deterrent by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Fines are a line item on the annual report.

    Heck, they're actually in the addendum, and most investors don't even read them (but should).

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. Re: You donâ(TM)t really think they will pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's going to make them pay? You and whose army? Ours? LOL

  18. Re: You donâ(TM)t really think they will pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police seizing all their assets and Google being denied access to one of the world's biggest market is good enough, thanks. No need for an army.

    Will the US army really fight to defend a private corporation's interest? (trick question, I know!)

  19. Re: You donâ(TM)t really think they will pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The European Commission. If they don't pay, their bank accounts will be blocked and ultimately, assets will be confiscated.

  20. shot across bow for upcoming GDPR fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which will make this look like chump change ...

  21. Re: You donâ(TM)t really think they will pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they just need to go dark for a day or two exclusively in Europe. All that "competition" can take up the slack. No big deal right?

    Really.though, what EU company is "competing" with Google?

  22. Re: You donâ(TM)t really think they will pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google went dark I doubt a tear would be shed.

  23. True Meaning of EU Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're so fucked financially that we're fining any company or any one we can just so we can drink a few more bottles of wine and eat caviar while a large group of our people don't have enough for decent food for their families.

  24. Well they need the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU are desperate for money.

  25. At least get it right by GNious · · Score: 1

    "EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who ordered Apple Inc. to pay back some 13 billion euros in taxes last year"
    No, the commission ordered Ireland to revert a long-standing case of corporate welfare done in a manner that violate the Common Market rules.

  26. TED video by esonik · · Score: 1

    Related TED video:

    How Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google manipulate our emotions

    https://youtu.be/xRL2vVAa47I