Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Google Harm Local Search Rivals? EU Antitrust Regulators Ask (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

EU antitrust regulators have asked Google's rivals if the internet search giant unfairly demotes local search competitors, according to a questionnaire seen by Reuters, a move which could lead to a fourth case against the Alphabet unit. From a report: Google has been fined a total 6.76 billion euros ($7.7 billion) in the last 17 months for favoring its comparison shopping service and for using its dominant Android mobile operating system to reinforce its search engine market power. The European Commission, which took the world's most popular internet search engine to task for these two anti-competitive practices, is wrapping up a third case which involves Google's AdSense advertising service. The EU competition authority's interest in local search services followed a complaint by U.S. search and advertising company Yelp and rivals in the travel, restaurant and accommodation industries. Further reading: In an Open Letter To EU's Competition Commissioner, 14 European Shopping Comparison Services Say Google is Not Making the Search For Products Fairer.

61 comments

  1. I wonder what they'll say by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what Google's rivals will have to say about Google's business practices. Why waste the time even sending out the survey. Either they've obviously broken some law, or the EU is just looking to legitimize their shakedown.

    1. Re:I wonder what they'll say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      legitimize their shakedown

      US tech firms have become giant pinatas for the EU. If the EU had any tech firms that mattered they might abuse them as well. If the EU vanished tomorrow the Internet might not notice for a few days and when it finally did it would be a curiosity.

      Not that I give a damn; giant US tech firms and the EU deserve each other. Fleece them hard.

    2. Re:I wonder what they'll say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one really likes to live in a communist state

    3. Re:I wonder what they'll say by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The survey doesn't just take their word for it, it requires evidence of how Google has been stifling them.

      For example, by requiring Google search to be the default on Android phones. Doesn't matter how much rivals offer to pay, because the phone needs Google Play and all the other stuff the default has to be Google search.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I wonder what they'll say by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I wonder what Google's rivals will have to say about Google's business practices. Why waste the time even sending out the survey.

      I know right? What kind of an investigation actually asks all the people involved rather than just taking one side at face value. These Europeans don't know the first thing about how to do regulation. They should learn from America and just do whatever the lobbyists tell them.

    5. Re:I wonder what they'll say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right? What kind of an investigation actually asks all the people involved rather than just taking one side at face value. These Europeans don't know the first thing about how to do regulation. They should learn from America and just do whatever the lobbyists tell them.

      They already do what the lobbyists tell them. Or do you think the new law on charging for links happened because of an impartial investigation that looks at the benefits to all parties?

      And why did they go after Apple in Ireland? There are four major classes of exceptions to the "state aid" provisions that are recognized in EU law - at various points in the past ALL of them applied to Ireland - do you really think none of them applies to the present? And if they don't apply, what about the rule that existing aid can not be required to be returned in the event a policy is decided to represent "state aid" not covered by the exceptions?

      No, it's pretty clear that various interested parties lobbied for that decision (such as certain EU powers that would love to see the corporations move into their country, and have no qualms about kicking the Irish to the curb).

      Politics always seems to come down to serving special interest groups.

  2. local search services by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the Internet there is no such thing as "local".

    1. Re: local search services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europeans don't "get" the Internet.

    2. Re: local search services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please edit your hosts file and add this line:
      slashdot.org 127.0.0.1

      Heil Hitlary!

    3. Re: local search services by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      On the Internet there is no such thing as "local".

      The hell there isn't, there is lots of 'local' on the internet. If I need a major repair for my car I'm not hitting the internet looking for the most price-worthy repair service regardless of where on the planet it is located, I'll hit the internet looking for the most price-worthy local repair service with a lot of positive reviews. The same goes for all sorts of other goods and services.

    4. Re: local search services by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      you mean:
      127.0.0.1 slashdot.org

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re: local search services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Europeans don't actually care about whether the internet is "local." They care about whether the profits made from the internet are "local." Google makes a lot of money off search and advertising, which are naturally related fields of making people aware of things, but Google is a US-based company. The Europeans would like to see European companies make that money instead, so they have decided to try to investigate and legislate that wish into reality, bypassing more onerous routes of obtaining money like innovation and competition. The EU is very much a living caricature of the government in Atlas Shrugged

    6. Re: local search services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when latencies are of importance. Then locality matters big time.

    7. Re: local search services by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Europeans DO "get" the Internet. But they need to be disconnected from it so that they no longer get it. Preserve their local networks.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    8. Re: local search services by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      People living in the EU saw what France did with Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
      Given the freedom of choice people in what was then the EU later selected Microsoft and Apple products.
      They now enjoy the use of innovative US search services.

      EU nation state bureaucrats can only create new ways to police, spy, tax, regulate and fine.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re: local search services by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      What GP commenter meant was that since he never leaves his mom's basement, and orders in anything he could ever want on Amazon (parts for his gaming "rig", there are multiple brands of pizza rolls, and flavors of Mountain Dew, etc.), there is no "local" on his Internet.

    10. Re: local search services by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      So are you saying Silicon Valley is Galt's Gulch, and all the money should stream there? Or am I being narrow minded, since Amazon isn't headquartered in S.V.?

    11. Re: local search services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU nation state bureaucrats can only create new ways to police, spy, tax, regulate and fine.

      You omitted a few from your list: Give people a better quality of life, higher level of happiness, better worker protections and consumer protections.

    12. Re: local search services by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Goes to: www.google.com
      Oh look I ended up at www.google.de
      Interesting. If the internet wasn't local why did I just end up on a customised server providing customised content based on my location?

    13. Re: local search services by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      EU nation state bureaucrats can only create new ways to police, spy, tax, regulate and fine.

      Without an army to direct at others or your own people, this is actually *ALL* that governments are capable of doing.

  3. yes by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> Does Google Harm Local Search Rivals?

    Yes. That's the point.

  4. People use what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the EU's issue with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. Can't tell me that people don't know how to download a different browser if they wanted one. Or find a different search engine to use, if they can because in some parts of the world the government decides for you. I think Google has too much control for sure, but its not inhibiting choice, its just that most choose Google.

    1. Re:People use what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hurrr durr the gobermint decides for you"
      You yanks have a fucked up view of the world. A government isn't some alien 3rd power, that's our representatives reining in the worst of corporate abuse ... on a good day when they're not being corrupted by evil outside forces such as American/Israeli lobbyists.

    2. Re:People use what they want by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is a bit difference between the two.
      IE on every Windows PC, when IE was the Good enough browser that installing a competitor was not worth the effort. This caused website developers to focus on IE vs others, because the chances are they they will be on IE.

      What lead to IE downfall was its overconfidence and sticking to IE 6 for way too long, and the implementation of Active X which opened the PC for massive security problems. That opened the door for Firefox and Google Chrome. Mostly because IE 6 sucked so much that going to a different browser was worth the effort. If Microsoft kept IE current, chances are with the exception of those Linux and Mac users we would still be using IE. And Microsoft may had pushed to put IE on mobile devices as well.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One way, they only show text labels for businesses on their G-maps @ various zoom levels such that small non-google-advertisers you have to zoom ALLLLL the way in to see what they are, whereas partners are seen way zoomed out.

    Annoying AF

    1. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solution: Don't use Google maps.

    2. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: Don't claim to be a neutral party if you're advertising your advertisers on a map and obfuscating non-advertisers, because that's not the same thing. Solution: Think harder. Solution: Go wash your hands, they're filthy.

    3. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      advertisers on a map and obfuscating non-advertisers,

      Uhm... that's literally what advertising is. You pay money in exchange for eyeballs.

      I don't like it either, which is why i don't use Google maps. Fortunately, nobody is compelling me to, and I am free to chose alternatives.

      Don't blame others for your own choices.

    4. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming to be a neutral party is incompatible with displaying only advertised results on a MAP, moron. You don't have to understand this basic shit, nor was my comment aimed for only your apparently stupid eyeballs.

    5. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is an advertising company, and do not claim to be a "neutral party". Their business model is to accept money in exchange for displaying their customer's ads.

      Don't blame others for your own choice. Responsibility matters. Learn to have some.

    6. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming to be a neutral party is incompatible with displaying only advertised results on a MAP, moron. You don't have to understand this basic shit, nor was my comment aimed for only your apparently way-too-stupid eyeballs.

    7. Re:Google maps text labels @ zoom levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is an advertising company, and do not claim to be a "neutral party". Their business model is to accept money in exchange for displaying their customer's ads.

      Don't blame others for your own choice. Responsibility matters. Learn to have some.

  6. Europe vs american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American perspective: Google is a good ol 'murican startup, who is a good boy and didn't do nuffin wrong. Evil European socialists are always picking on our national treasures.

    European perspective: Google (and all surveillance-capialist abominations) are just another predatory multinational, taking more from society than they put in. Search engines are so trivial that every country with protectionism (Russia, China) have spawned their own locally optimized versions of all google's bait offerings.

    Good strategy: Ban American sites.
    Best strategy: Ban surveillance capitalism

    1. Re:Europe vs american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The governments of Europe want all businesses under their jurisdiction. Most European regulations exists to protect European businesses, because unfortunately continental European businesses quickly turn hyper-bureaucratic as they grow, and are unable to compete in Asia and the Americas.

      The only business that EU tolerates is European-owned business. We can hardly blame them for trying, but their intentions are embarrassingly transparent.

  7. Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I hate Google as much as the next guy, but why should it be ANY obligation of Google's to promote their competitors or treat them in any given way?

    The internet has many search engines. There is zero barrier to simply visiting engine A instead of engine B. It is literally no harder than visiting any other URL. Use a different one, and let Google die the death it so richly, richly deserves.

    Google has power because people give Google power. Stop doing that, and the problem will solve itself lickety split.

    1. Re:Obligation? by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you have that backwards. The problem isn't that businesses don't have a search engine to use. The problem is that being highly ranked on any search engine besides Google is not going to make you visible on the internet. This means, in effect, Google controls what people see on the internet. If you don't mind having one company control how other people see your business then fine, but I can understand why that could be considered undue control.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means, in effect, Google controls what people see on the internet.

      Which is why I don't use Google.

      If someone else wants to, that's their own choice to make. Not yours and not mine, no matter how much we may feel they are wrong.

      And I do believe they are wrong. That fact however does not confer upon me the right to dictate their choices to them. This is not government business. It is personal choice. You want to make a difference? Make a difference choice. Convince others to make a difference choice.

    3. Re:Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming to be a neutral party is incompatible with displaying only advertised results on a MAP, moron. You don't have to understand this basic shit, but you can't refute it without understanding it.

      EU decides, yes it IS their right to dictate to Google their legal expectations. That IS government business, and they run it. You don't decide bitch. Libertarian morons will never understand this basic shit.

      EU will do what it wants, and you can do what you want. Right now you want to fuck off, and you have our permission. Find that Libertarian paradise at the bottom of the ocean, good luck kid.

    4. Re:Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming to be a neutral party is incompatible with displaying only advertised results on a MAP, moron

      What are you talking about? MAP? Neutral party? What?

      From the summary:

      wrapping up a third case which involves Google's AdSense advertising service. The EU competition authority's interest in local search services followed a complaint by U.S. search and advertising company Yelp and rivals in the travel, restaurant and accommodation industries.

      It is clear to everyone who isn't a total idiot that AdSense is an advertising network. It isn't a "neutral party". Neither is "Yelp" for that matter.

      No idea what you're on about.

    5. Re:Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linking their advertising with their "neutral" features is what we're talking about, idiot. How this goes over your head is frankly unknown at this time, it's dirt simple.

    6. Re:Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your confusion is imagining that Google is "neutral". It is not, and it discloses exactly how much money it receives not to be.

      Once you understand that, things will become clearer for you.

      Fortunately, you are not being compelled to use it.

    7. Re:Obligation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having concerns about Google's dominance is fair enough. Suggesting that the problem is demoting other search engines in their results though is plain stupid. If I search on Google looking for search engines and all it tells me is "Google" then it'll lower my opinion of Google a little and I'll find search engines elsewhere. If I search on Google for anything else then I don't want to be told a list of other people's search engines. I already picked a search engine and want it to come up with results germane to the search criteria.

    8. Re:Obligation? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Look, I hate Google as much as the next guy, but why should it be ANY obligation of Google's to promote their competitors or treat them in any given way?

      There is no obligation for Google to promote their competitors. Their is obligation for Google not to promote themselves though the use of their market power. It's called anti-trust law. It prevents monopolies, something that America couldn't give two shits about doing despite it being just as relevant of a law over there.

      The internet has many search engines. There is zero barrier to simply visiting engine A instead of engine B.

      You may not have noticed but this has nothing to do with Google's Internet Search and everything to do with product specific search services. And if you care to start a product specific search service then having your service demoted in the worlds leading Internet search engine is not only a barrier, but it's a barrier created through the abuse of market power.

      Google has power because people give Google power.

      No, Google has power because of it's size, and you know what? That's actually okay. They can be big, they can have power. The only thing anyone cares about is if they abuse that power.

      Since Slashdot likes politics more than cars these days:
      The government has power. The people gave it that power. The solution is not to strip the power of the government but to put checks in place to ensure that the government can't unilaterally further entrench it's power, like e.g. A president who thinks he can wave his pen to change a constitution.

  8. Who are they? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Who are these European search engines that are on par with Google?

    Their closest competitor I know of is Bing by Microsoft and I wouldn't call them a local EU search company.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re: Who are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. They probably want to stay in good terms with the local market. If google is motivated by profits and chooses paths toward that end, and locals are free to also choose their paths, then it seems likely that suppression of local providers might be incidental to the course of business.

    2. Re: Who are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most search engines are fly by night spam operations that source their results from Google, DuckDuckGo, or bing. The people who complain the most about Google dominating the web search market are themselves spammers, including those shitty product searches that the EU is keen on supporting.

      Usually they're pissed about the fact that, just as they were finally getting their sites near the top of the results, after they spent a shitload of money towards their manipulation efforts, Google either outright delists them or tweaks theire algorithm so that they fall way behind in favor of sites relevant to the search.

      Anyways, the EU is already willing to censor the internet. If Google is pissing them off that bad, then why not just do a China so that the local spammers can have their way?

    3. Re:Who are they? by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

      https://www.qwant.com/ is the only one

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
  9. Re: Local Search Rivals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No such things!!!
    What local rivals? Qwant irrelevant, almost.
    Rivals such as Bing or Duckduckgo aren't European companies

  10. Local as wirhin the EU, or a country, or village? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    I don't even know of any EU search engines. Unless thepiratebay counts.

      Maybe the EU should build a giant firewall that redirects search requests to their search engines and make Google pay for it. /s

      Of course then there is the problem of "local" search engines returning different results for French, Spanish, German,,, searches which would indicate preference to whatever skewed algorithms rhw EU creates to achieve "parity".

  11. Penis glue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anus tacos for dinner!

  12. what local search rivals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what locales have someone to rival google's search?
    bing?
    yahoo?
    neither of them are "local", nor really rival.

  13. Re:Local as wirhin the EU, or a country, or villag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Not such big names, but at least from Qwant you should have heard here on Slashdot. It's the prime example when EU protectionism is brought up.

  14. Reductio ad absurdum by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I'm a strong advocate of fair trade, but isn't search pretty much a natural monopoly to begin with?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      No, search isn't a natural monopoly. There's no reason network effects should exist.

      That said, it seems very hard to displace Google, because they are a monopoly.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  15. How fucking stupid are the EUdiots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google has *NO* impact on other search engines. They don't even interact.

    You know who does impact other search engines? The People that choose to use Google over rivals.

    That's it in a nutshell.

    People around the world choose more often than not to use Google.
    The number of people using Google as a search engine determines where businesses spend advertising dollars.
    Google does *NOT* have a monopoly, is *NOT* a monopoly.
    The power over how much is spent on Google advertising is 100% based on the PEOPLE, not Google.
    If the EUdiots don't want Google to get the search hits or advertising dollars, then they need to talk to the PEOPLE, they decide what gets spent where, not GOOGLE.

    You know, this isn't rocket science, it's plain and simple common sense, which apparently the EUdiots have none of.

    1. Re: How fucking stupid are the EUdiots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android is the world's dominant mobile operating system. When licensing Android, Google requires smartphone makers to load 11 core Google apps onto the phone before a customer buys it. The apps need to be at least one swipe away from the home screen, and customers cannot delete those apps.

      In that "take-it-or-leave-it" approach, Europe says Google has illegally abused its market dominance. Android is particularly popular in Europe, with about 80% of the market for smartphones and tablets, according to the Commission.

    2. Re: How fucking stupid are the EUdiots? by JillElf · · Score: 1

      This may be out of date but as of 2014, Android and Google Mobile Store did not have license fees. Manufacturers needed testing, from third parties NOT Google, to get the license to install Google Mobile Store. The third parties did charge for their services. https://www.theguardian.com/te... If this is a problem, I would think the EU is a big enough market with enough bright minds that they can roll out their own version of Android and create their own store. I'm sure somebody's brother would be delighted to get the contract. Who knows, it might make a great export and proceed to stomp all over Android (and Google).

  16. Is the EU short on cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU antitrust regulators have asked Google's rivals for a way to justify fining them billions of euros. After promising them a small cut of the money, it is very likely something will be found.

  17. Like Walmart hurts small shops by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    When Walmart moves in, many small shops go out of business because they can't compete with Walmart's prices.

    BUT not ALL stores are harmed by Walmart. Some find ways to offer services or products that Walmart can't. For example:
    - Car parts stores. You can buy some car parts at Walmart, but good luck trying to get help figuring out which one fits your car!
    - Hardware stores. You can buy hardware at Walmart, but again, good luck getting help finding the exact tool you need.
    - Specialty shops that carry a deep selection in one category, such as pool supplies.

    Many of the small shops that are killed by Walmart failed to keep up with changes in the way people do business.

    Innovate, or die!

    This is true for these "competing" search engines too. Offer something Google doesn't, or die. No, Google is not good at EVERYTHING.