Google fined €2.42 billion for promoting own shopping results

[Corky34]

This is quite worrying as it could create precedent that Google is anti-competitive as a search engine against Yahoo and Bing...

It won't because market dominance is not illegal under EU antitrust rules, what is illegal though is using a market dominance to restrict competition, something we all want to see i would guess as it leads to lower prices and choices if we don't like the services provided, they're trying to prevent the very issue you raised in an earlier post when you said "consumer and their opinions matter as much as an Ant does to the planet".

Business Insider has a fairly good article detailing the evidence, one of the stand out things for me was how it was largely American lobbyist who were responsibly for persuading the EU to use its powers to hobble other American tech companies.

[Saracen]

I don't agree with this, Google is not abusing their position as the mainstream search engine, they are simply providing a service.


....

That's the point ... they're not "simply" providing a service. Not according to the EU anyway, and on this at least, I'm a fan of the EU.

If Google were simply providing a service, there wouldn't be an issue. The argument is that they're providing a service, have managed to achieve market dominance and effectively, monopolistic control .... and then abused it. It's the last bit that got them fined.

If, having achieved a position of market power, they abuse that to the detriment of consumers, or to the detriment of competitors which is consumer detriment one step removed, then they deserve to get fined. And given their size and wealth, it has to be a big fine in order to have more influence on corporate behaviour than a gnat landing on an elephant's butt does on the elephant's behaviour.

Those that know me will know that despite being firmly pro-Brexit, I've never believed that that is without cost and one cost I do regret is that the EU is one of the few bodies, outside of the US Federal Government, big enough to take on companues like Google and make them hurt.

EU, more power to you on this.

[Saracen]

I would applaud them if I got a share of the fine.....where exactly does that money go and where is it coming from?

Well, arguably we do get a share. It's just indirect.

Given that the EU spends money on this, that and the other, like national infrastructure grants, any money they get from such fines neans less they have to raise through taxation (via large net contributors such as, for now, the UK) and/or the less they have to reduce such subsidies. Like any national, or in the eU's case supra-national, they have limuted ways of gaining oprating revenue. If some comes from big corporates, especially those with a background in aggressive tax avoidance, like Google, then less has to come from taxpayers. And frankly, I think this is both poetic justice and utterly hilarious.


It's the same argument as when, for instance, a bank misleads and rips off customers over, oh say PPI, and gets fined. We, the customers, were the ones that lost out (and maybe get compensation, but the Treasury that gets the fine income.

[Saracen]

As far as I'm aware Google is a business and not a charity, just because a lot of people use them to find products doesn't mean they have a responsibility to present those results "fairly" - that's how advertising works.

So you're okay with a supermarket using market power to destroy competitors, and having done so, drive up prices for consumers once they have no choice about where to go. After all, they're a business not a charity?

You don't mind your utility company refusing to transfer your account just because pesky government regulation says they have to, and then tripling your utility bills, because they're a business not a charity and don't have to act "fairly"?

The fact is businesses don't have to act fairly because they're nice, but when laws say they have to comply with antitrust law, which requires certain minimum standards of fairness, then they have to comply or face the consequences.

[spacein_vader]

I was going to write a further response to the above, but Saracen has articulated it far better than I ever could.

There are several bad things about the EU, this is not one of them.

There are several good things about Google, this is not one of them.

[Saracen]

....

There are several good things about Google .....

You had me until that.

I can only think of one - they're not Satan personified.

At least, I don't think so.



#justkidding.

I think.

[DanceswithUnix]

Those that know me will know that despite being firmly pro-Brexit, I've never believed that that is without cost and one cost I do regret is that the EU is one of the few bodies, outside of the US Federal Government, big enough to take on companues like Google and make them hurt.

EU, more power to you on this.

Great in principle, but Intel still haven't paid their 2009 fine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN19H0US

I'm sure Google can drag this out a decade too.

[spacein_vader]

You had me until that.

I can only think of one - they're not Satan personified.

At least, I don't think so.



#justkidding.

I think.

The main good point is that it isn't Bing.

[Saracen]

Great in principle, but Intel still haven't paid their 2009 fine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN19H0US

I'm sure Google can drag this out a decade too.

Very possibly. Nobody ever said the Wheels of Justice grind quickly .... especially with lawyers paid by the hour. But grind, they do. Eventually, assuming the decision is upheld by the ECJ, the fine becomes payable, and in the meantime, is no doubt recorded in their accounts as a contingency.

Anywhere you have an appeals process, those with the money can afford to drag things out, often for years. It happens in the EU, it happens in the UK and the US Courts are experts and masters at dragging things out. In no small part, it's a function of limited resources at senior courts, and a large backlog.

But what's the alternative?

Either we use the system and if it takes years, it takes years, or we just give up and let filthy rich companies do whatever they like, confident in the knowledge that they truly are above the law.

At that point, we might just as well accept that democracy is truly dead, and we have a plutocracy running the place. Or a 'corpocracy', or whatever.

So, years or not, this fine is a start. And moreover, the fine is not the real kicker. The kicker, for Google, is that court's order to amend their ways to remove the unfairness, in 90 days IIRC, or face daily fines in the millions, based on turnovet. I wonder if that latter provision had one eye on previous fines that have been postponed by appeals, because if it fails, the accumulated fines would be HUGE.


Oh, and on the subject of slow-grinding justice, just today we've seen 6 charged over Hillsborough, ranging from 95 counts of gross negligence manslaughter, to abuse of public office, to perverting the course of justice over the cover-up. Granted, we have charges and not yet convictions, but if some of these 'great and good' get their allegedly crooked butts thrown in jail, and my bet is at least some certainly will if they're convicted, then it may be 28 years (and counting) but I'd bet victim's friends and family would think better late than never.

[Saracen]

The main good point is that it isn't Bing.

Point taken.

[Hoonigan]

That's the point ... they're not "simply" providing a service. Not according to the EU anyway, and on this at least, I'm a fan of the EU.

If Google were simply providing a service, there wouldn't be an issue. The argument is that they're providing a service, have managed to achieve market dominance and effectively, monopolistic control .... and then abused it. It's the last bit that got them fined.

If, having achieved a position of market power, they abuse that to the detriment of consumers, or to the detriment of competitors which is consumer detriment one step removed, then they deserve to get fined. And given their size and wealth, it has to be a big fine in order to have more influence on corporate behaviour than a gnat landing on an elephant's butt does on the elephant's behaviour.

Those that know me will know that despite being firmly pro-Brexit, I've never believed that that is without cost and one cost I do regret is that the EU is one of the few bodies, outside of the US Federal Government, big enough to take on companues like Google and make them hurt.

EU, more power to you on this.

Well, arguably we do get a share. It's just indirect.

Given that the EU spends money on this, that and the other, like national infrastructure grants, any money they get from such fines neans less they have to raise through taxation (via large net contributors such as, for now, the UK) and/or the less they have to reduce such subsidies. Like any national, or in the eU's case supra-national, they have limuted ways of gaining oprating revenue. If some comes from big corporates, especially those with a background in aggressive tax avoidance, like Google, then less has to come from taxpayers. And frankly, I think this is both poetic justice and utterly hilarious.


It's the same argument as when, for instance, a bank misleads and rips off customers over, oh say PPI, and gets fined. We, the customers, were the ones that lost out (and maybe get compensation, but the Treasury that gets the fine income.

So you're okay with a supermarket using market power to destroy competitors, and having done so, drive up prices for consumers once they have no choice about where to go. After all, they're a business not a charity?

You don't mind your utility company refusing to transfer your account just because pesky government regulation says they have to, and then tripling your utility bills, because they're a business not a charity and don't have to act "fairly"?

The fact is businesses don't have to act fairly because they're nice, but when laws say they have to comply with antitrust law, which requires certain minimum standards of fairness, then they have to comply or face the consequences.

You had me until that.

I can only think of one - they're not Satan personified.

At least, I don't think so.



#justkidding.

I think.

I've got two points to make, one more important than the other:

1) You seem to have gained a fan.

2) You've completely and utterly contradicted yourself in those posts.

[Saracen]

....

2) You've completely and utterly contradicted yourself in those posts.

In what way?

I'm not a fan of the EU, and much less so of the UK being in it but it does do some good. I've always regarded either uncritical pro-EU or anti-EU stances as simplistic. I do support the EU being able to, and using, antitrust laws, not least because few others can and, at leadt while we're in, the UK is part of that action as part of the EU.

I don't much like it that justice grinds slowly, but there are reasons, some of which are more valid in my opinion than others. One such reason is that any fair, reasonable system of justice has to have a proper, thorough appeals process and even the likes of Google, who I wholly despise by the way, are entitled to it. It's not Google's (or Intel's) fault if the system takes years. They didn't design it, even if they take full advantage of it. The questions in post 3 are rhetorical, for the sake of illustrating why the imperfect, slow system we have is better than not having a way to deal with corporate excess and abuse.

I don't see any contradictions at all, if you read my posts as theg were intended. If you think there are, please point them out and I'll try to address them.

[FRISH]

Honestly I agree that this decision seems silly. Of course google would want to show google results, it's their website. I don't see how it's anti competitive when other companies don't tend to rush to promote others. It's not like they're actually preventing you from using other shopping options or even excluding them from a google search.

[Disturbedguy]

Honestly I don't see how it's anti competitive when other companies don't tend to rush to promote others.

You need to open your eyes then, its clearly anti-competitive

It's not like they're actually preventing you from using other shopping options or even excluding them from a google search.

Except, that is essentially what they are doing by making the results appear further down the search results, often on other pages. Making it harder for the general public to see, which means they get less traffic which in turn means they are less likely to make a sales...

[Saracen]

Honestly I agree that this decision seems silly. Of course google would want to show google results, it's their website. I don't see how it's anti competitive when other companies don't tend to rush to promote others. It's not like they're actually preventing you from using other shopping options or even excluding them from a google search.

Do you understand the meaning of "anticompetitive"?

I don't mean that as an insult, but in this context, anti-competitive has a very specific context, and it's about abuse of market power. It refers, effectively (and in this case) to monopoly power, or in general, at least oligopoly power.

If any one company has the ability, by virtue of their market dominance, tovovertly affect the market by their actions, then they have to be very careful not to abuse that power.

The most obvious example is, for example, if Saracen Inc has 90% of the EU widget market, then if I cut my price on widgets to below cost price, I destroy competitors, but by virtue of my size and reserves, I can loss-lead for a year or two to do it. Then, once my competitors have gone bust, I jack my prices up well above where they initially were. Had I done that earlier, buyers would have defected to competitors but now, you have to pay my price or do without.

Also, having seen what I did to previoys competitors, others will think long and hard before coming into the market, in case they face the same fate.

And Google has that sort of market power, having, what, 75% of US search market and, IIRC, 90% of UK/EU search market.


In terms of what "other companies" do, in the search market, it doesn't much matter since none gave anything like sufficient market share to have monopolistic influence in the market. Their actions aren't, at least in "search" anti-competitive.