Slashdot Mirror
EU Expected To Hit Google with Another Massive Antitrust Fine (fortune.com)
If you thought the European Commission was done hitting Google with massive fines, think again. From a report: Having already whacked the U.S. company with a $2.7 billion fine in 2017 (for disadvantaging comparison-shopping rivals in its search results) and a $5 billion fine last year (for disadvantaging software rivals in the Android ecosystem,) the Commission will reportedly issue another financial penalty next week. The fine's imminent nature was reported Friday by the Financial Times, citing three unnamed sources. The Commission and Google both declined to provide comment on the report. It is all about Google's restrictions on the "AdSense for Search" boxes that third-party websites use to make it easier for users to search their sites. Searches conducted through the boxes bring up Google ads and, with Google having such a dominant position in the European online search advertising market, the Commission warned the company in 2016 that it believed the company was illegally abusing its position.
honestly, this is not a cost of doing business. block access to EU countries. see what happens.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This is just another example of the EU pretending to care when they don't have enough money to fund their ridiculous social policies. Whenever they need cash, just make up some random BS and take the money from some wealthy corporation. It's a double win for the politicians. They get to be the good guys fighting against evil capitalism and simultaneously paying for their wealth re-distribution policies that have no chance at actually succeeding on their own.
I don't have a problem with fines per se. But the problem with the EU approach is they don't state exactly how to stop the behavior. They instead require companies to propose a solution, and they will reply whether or not they think the solution is good enough. If they don't think it's good enough, the company has to go back to the drawing board, come up with a new solution, and propose that. Repeat.
If you're going to fine a behavior, then you need to exactly define what behavior will cause the fine. That way companies can avoid that precise behavior to avoid the fine. If you don't want companies collecting personal info, but collecting personal info is a requisite for doing business (e.g. credit card payments), then either you need to state exactly under what situations and for how long you can collect personal info, or you need to prohibit the practice (and credit card payments) entirely. You can't just say "don't be evil" and expect companies to be able to comply.
The EU approach allows a degree of capriciousness on the part of government regulators which makes it extremely difficult for companies to come into and remain in compliance with EU anti-trust laws. I can understand why the EU wants to do it that way - it prevents loopholes. But the economic drag caused by that uncertainty about what exactly is/isn't allowed by the law far outweighs the benefit of not having loopholes.
Sure they state how to stop their behaviour.
The literal fine says what it's for. Just stop doing that. All of it.
You're trying to think of ways for corporations to not stop their behaviour, but to find a loophole. There aren't any loopholes.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Europe is already making a mint from unfair trade agreements with us. They pocket a cool $150 billion every single year. Just to be clear, remember Bernie's "free college" program that was widely mocked as unaffordable? That was $60 billion a year. Trump's wall? $25 billion one-time. 150 big ones still isn't enough for them. Even with all this fat cash, they can't find enough money in the cupboard to pay for their fair share of NATO. Why are we even in NATO any more? It should have thrown itself a victory party after the Soviet Union fell and been disbanded. Most members can't fight an invading girl scout troop successfully, much less make a meaningful contribution to collective defense. How about contributing instead of taking? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, isn't that the quintessential European sentiment?
What I heard was, we pay for their shit and in return we get compliance with our wishes. This hasn't been true for decades if it was ever true at all. Instead, we get overtly hostile acts like this. And before anyone starts, this didn't begin with Trump. It goes back a long way.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Nobody can compete with the first mover in a single global market that naturally produces monopolies. It is very much a winner takes all industry.
The EU is still being friendly. They could have gone the way of China and India to break the US hold on the internet. But they did not. Not yet anyway. They may if the balkanization of the internet continues and everyone else is trying to grab a piece of it.
Those guys "broke the hold" for no respectable reasons. They want to contain their populations at whim.
I see the usual disasterbators with US derangement syndrome and trolls are out in full force today. How much are you paid to front this silly post?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
them make up crimes
Anti-competitive behaviour isn't a made up crime. It's a crime in most countries. The fact America chooses not to pursue it despite also having anti-trust laws in place doesn't mean they are imaginary.
I wonder how soon the west will realize that this approach is destroying us?
Want to destroy the west? De-regulate the free market. The free market is inherently unstable with more than one company in it and will eventually consolidate to a monopoly. How great that would be. Fancy a dinner at Taco bell? Every restaurant is now taco bell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not only did they tell them how to stop the behaviour, they warned them 3 years ago the behaviour was believed to be illegal.