Slashdot Mirror
Google Fined Nearly $1.7 Billion For Ad Practices That Violated European Antitrust Laws (washingtonpost.com)
European regulators on Wednesday slapped Google with a roughly $1.7 billion fine on charges that its advertising practices violated local antitrust laws, marking the third time in as many years that the region's watchdogs have penalized the U.S. tech giant for harming competition and consumers. The Washington Post: Margrethe Vestager, the European Union's top competition commissioner, announced the punishment at a news conference, accusing Google of engaging in "illegal practices" in a bid to "cement its dominant market position" in the search and advertising markets. The new penalty adds to Google's costly headaches in Europe, where Vestager now has fined the tech giant more than $9 billion in total for a series of antitrust violations. Her actions stand in stark contrast to the United States, where regulators -- facing a flood of complaints that big tech companies have become too big and powerful -- have not brought a single antitrust case against Google or any of its peers in recent years, reflecting a widening transatlantic schism over Silicon Valley and its business practices.
Nothing will change until some of the higher-ups at these big tech companies are jailed, or killed.
Google needs to push its weight around. Time to go dark. Let see how well European companies do without Google.
Her actions stand in stark contrast to the United States, where regulators -- facing a flood of complaints that big tech companies have become too big and powerful -- have not brought a single antitrust case against Google or any of its peers in recent years, reflecting a widening transatlantic schism over Silicon Valley and its business practices.
No matter where you're from, it seems likely there exists more animus against a successful foreign company dominating a local market.
In the US, for instance, our current angst with Chinese domination in certain tech areas is rearing its ugly head as persecution of Huawei.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The fine is calculated as the loss to other companies and economies from their actions, while also considering their ability to pay. The fine is just the first stage though; if they don't stop doing it there will be further fines and even legal action against individuals.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
For our own selfish business needs (long gone is Don't be Evil)
The democrats make crap loads of money off google.
The only time they will introduce legislation against google is when they are sure it will not pass.
That way their base has something to believe in.
I'm not going to waste my mod points on this. You're clearly have no idea what the legislation regarding this really says.
https://myactivity.google.com/
The Data Care Act would be one such item, introduced by DEMOCRATS. The Republicans are against it and claim it is "detrimental" to the "free market". And the fines are working. Right to be Forgotten, for example has had Google make massive changes to how they operate in the EU. GDPR changed how Google, Facebook, etc all operate in the EU. Democrats protect privacy and the consumer. Republicans not so much.
The EU annual budget is roughly €150 billion. That comes from a handful of countries who are net contributors, (the UK is the third biggest contributor). Fining US corporations is a fairly painless way to boost the budget.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
US corporations won't be fined if they don't break the law. What is the point of having laws if you don't uphold them?
Unlike the US, there are still places in Europe where size, wealth and power don't provide immunity from prosecution when a corporation violates the law.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
So far the EU has hit Google with about $9.3 billion in fines over the last 3 years.
Seems to be working SOOO well...
The three fines where for behaviour from the last 10 years or so. The fines were not about the exact same thing.
We may find out if the fines are working over the next few years.
Invest in the USA and enjoy the freedom to grow your brand globally.
The USA. That never broke up huge monopolies in the telecommunications or computer operating system or oil industries.
No, the US is not 100% behind "free market" and all the dangers it entails.
Article is hidden behind a cookie wall in violation of GDPR because they are trying to force consent for personal tracking... Hope someone complains to the respective authorities and the publication is slammed with a fine as well
That's sensible thinking within the US, but in the EU you don't have to go to the trouble and expense of litigation. Government bodies can act on your behalf. This is probably of benefit to society as individuals have very little chance of succeeding in litigation against entities as large of multi-national corporations.
If you've been through any kind of litigation, you can probably see the value in this.
...on my feed. But three times?
Why does /. suck as much as Duke?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Don't be silly. If I was in a class action lawsuit, I would at least have a $10 check or some coupons to show for it.
From everything I can find, the EU was investigating VW at the same time as the US. The first indications of a problem were found at roughly the same time in Europe and in the US, and the fines levied were similar on both sides of the ocean. So yes, they were "investigating their own".
Or, you could hold all people and companies accountable equally under the law... just a thought.
Your attitude is why the rest of the world has no respect for the US. In most of the civilized world, it actually matters if someone has done something wrong. The old "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" is actually true in many places.
Unfortunately we see a ton of politically motivated, rather than legally motivated, prosecution in the US. It really makes me wonder why anyone would willingly do business there.
Curious how we can demonstrate this loss is due to the actions of Google and not companies stuck in old school business practices?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Drawing political lines here is not that useful, since there are plenty of republicans who will have invested. They would have been crazy not to have?
The actions should be directed at the company itself and maybe even putting regulation in place to control some of these practices. Ironically the past fews has been all about deregulation.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Unlike the US, there are still places in Europe where size, wealth and power don't provide immunity from prosecution when a corporation violates the law.
The thing is, in the US regulators are designed and tasked with protecting US companies from prosecution, as we've seen with the FAA, Boeing and the 737-MAX fiasco. This means they assume that everywhere else is the same. Its quite inconceivable to some Americans that the EU applies the same rules and regulations to EU companies as they do to foreign ones, ergo in order to quell the congnitive dissonance there must be an anti-US conspiracy.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
State privacy laws? You mean like the ones my state doesn't have? Where does it "gut" any existing law? Nothing in the law says that states can't add additional requirements and add MORE privacy-friendly laws ontop of this one. Or are you saying states should be free to not give a fuck? Because that basically makes my point: Republicans (aka "Red States") don't give a fuck. That's why my state doesn't really have data privacy laws.
except that isnt true.
When apple formed a cartel and illegally engaged in price fixing for ebooks they were given a slap on the wrist by the EU, and only the USA took action. Why, because in the cartel were Hachette (french) and Macmillan (German).
Its often see-no-evil when EU firms are involved in illegal activities.
The USA convicted a computer monopoly nearly 20 years ago; but since then has been unable to PUNISH the guilty. MS was convicted and never punished; if you call what they got punishment, you're a fool. (They paid a relatively tiny amount to bribe their way out from punishment.)
Even pedophiles go free if you are rich enough (and not black... that takes even more money.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Fining US corporations is a fairly painless way to boost the budget.
Errr horseshit. The law doesn't care about where corporations come from, and there's nothing painless about multi year protracted legal battles against incredibly wealthy and well resourced opponents.
Now here's a thought, rather than getting all upset that a USA based company is in trouble with a another country, instead point out how that USA based company actually complied with laws that have been on the books since the 60s (before the precious budget contributor of the UK even joined the EU).
Prof. Randy Picker at the Univ. of Chicago has a good course - Internet Giants: The Law and Economics of Media Platforms - that includes a fairly in depth look at the EU's history of fines against American tech companies in the guise of anti-competitive practices. Microsoft, 2004, $578 million, began a string of significant fines by the EU. They went after Intel, Apple, Google, et al. They had MS jump through hoops to satisfy the regulators. MS Media Player - nope, no good. MS web browser - nope no good either. Fine, fine and fine some more. The problem is, and has been, isolating just exactly who has been hurt. Europe had no domestic companies that Europeans might have preferred. Europe was slow to create a culture of computer and tech innovation. If it was there, it was poorly introduced and marketed. It's not enough to create a good, or even great, product if you're unable to collaterally create an equally good marketing strategy. The privacy issues are separate and apart from the anti-competitive rulings.
Are American companies aggressive in pursuit of profits? Of course they are. And why should they not be? We all have choices. And a lot of people world wide have chosen to use Google, Intel, Apple, Chrome, Android, Amazon and others. American innovation has brought enormous profits. That's the whole point of business. The mantra of 'do no harm' has, of itself, seemingly done a bit of harm. At least to Google. Evidently not to doctors.
I don't resent Jobs or Gates for doing something I couldn't do. I don't resent that they became wealthy and I did not. The EU regulators need a bit of introspection. And the EU is not simply a large, harmonic monoculture. In some respects, Barcelona has more in common with Austin or Silicon V than Paris when it comes to innovation. C'mon EU, either do or get off of the pot.
Unlike the EU, the right of the accused to know the exact nature and cause of the accusation against them is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The EU never told Google what they thought Google was doing wrong. Just that it was "anti-competitive." The way the EU handles these cases is they inform Google that they're facing an anti-trust judgement, but never state exactly what the problem behavior is. Google had to come up with a proposed solution, present it to the EU, and the EU rejected it without explaining why. Google then had to come up with a different proposal, present it to the EU, and the EU rejected that. Repeat until the deadline passed.
Don't misunderstand me Google probably did need to be taken down a peg or two. And this is the same crappy way Google treats people with their YouTube demonitization and account revocation. They'll punish you without ever explaining why you're being punished, pointing you to their generic list of suggested guidelines without bothering to explain which one you ran afoul of. But it's wrong when Google does it, and it's wrong when the EU does it. If you think someone or some company did something wrong, you need to tell them exactly what they did wrong so they can correct that behavior. You don't just say "you're wrong" and punish them.
....if Britain isn't going to, then SOMEONE has to start paying Brussels' bills!
-Styopa
The fines should have been bigger, and included jail terms for the senior executives.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You're an idiot. We didn't execute the entire German Army. The top guys were hanged, guys who ran the death camps were hanged.. Standouts who were particularly brutal were hanged... The average rank and file were sent home.
The moment you said the cleaning ladies should be sent to jail is the moment everyone else learned you were a wack-a-doodle.
So the corporate cancer google has become a monopoly, eh? What a shocking problem. Not.
In solution terms:
(1) The google can divide itself into competing companies.
(2) The parts improve faster because of REAL competition.
(3) PROFIT!
For simplicity, I left out a few intermediary steps. For example, the part about how we would get more freedom by having more choice (which can be implemented even if many (or even most) people are too lazy to be more free). Also the step where the parent holding company (Alphabet, which already exists) can keep most of the enlarged profits as long as the competing companies honor their "Chinese walls".
Now to search the discussion to see if there are any constructive solutions on display. First let me adjust my expectations a bit lower. Down to the level of today's Slashdot...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Only mention of "solution" in the discussion (before mine), but no details. Guessing from the context, but I am willing to wager some quatloos it was NOT a real solution and I would like to see more details. Actually, from reading your comment again, it is not clear that the google actually offered any pretense of a solution, which could certainly explain why you didn't offer a link to it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
None of that law invalidates other laws or prevents states from adding on more protections. It only "hurts" by establishing a better minimum than we have no. But I think it's funny that you've gotta defend Trump when I never mentioned him...he's not the ENTIRE Republican party. Project much, snowflake?
speeding, careless or dangerous driving... that's if you didn't kill or injure any body. Compensation can also be ordered.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
It would have been nice if the summary had listed key reasons leading to sanctions. Even the article itself takes it time before finally spelling them out:
Google for a time prohibited those third-party sites [that used Google’s AdSense for Search] from using rival ad services, then required prominent placement of its own ads. (...) “There was no reason for Google to include these restrictive clauses in their contracts except to keep rivals out of the market,” Vestager [(the European Union’s top competition commissioner)] said at her news conference.
Who made you spokesman for the people of the EU?
EU laws apply to EU companies and companies that operate in the EU. That is what they are, not a scheme against ultra-nationalist fantasies. Every day I find myself wanting the world to become truly multi-polar again, like it was before the fad of superpowers. This is already happening due to growth rates, the EU and China will soon be doing more business together than the US with both combined. The AU (African Union) is starting to shape up as a meaningful entity especially the smaller ECOWAS military cooperation, as is ASEAN with naval treaties and increased shipping security all doing better than every former colonial power. This time multi-polarity is going to be permanent and world-wide, based on local strength rather than colonial exploitation to support over-sized powers.
Why doesn't Google Legal Team flag these illegal contracts?
Casteism