EU fines Google €2.42B for anti-competitive behaviour


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/06/27/margrethe-vestager.html


#2

Maybe now the UK will stay in the EU to get some of that sweet, sweet Google settlement money.


#3

That’s one way to get some of those dodged corporate taxes. Google will just write it off as cost of doing business in their second largest market (after China), but at least they can’t hide from the settlement (though of course they’ll appeal).


#4

But as a Google user, I want Google to promote their services higher than their competitors. I’d go directly to their competitors for services if I wanted to. As long as I can find their competitors in their search results, it’s fine.

“Hold still and stop squirming. I’m trying to save you from drowning!”
“But I’m a fish, you idiot!”


#5

Awesome! Well done EU.

PS: Margrethe Vestager is Danish, not Dutch.


#6

Please help me understand why you believe this is good?


#7

I am not sure if you are being serious, also I do not yet know much about to details of this case beyond what has been in the news cycle the last 24hs. You are basically asking why antithrust laws are good, which seems strange to me, disingenuous even. It is asking why monopolies are bad, which if you really do not know you really should google excatly that: Why are monopolies bad

Sorry if I sound snarky. If you have information that this fine is bogus and what google is doing really is not in breach of EUs antithrust laws, I would like to hear about it. Or if you are pro monopolies, I would be very interested in your reasoning and we can have nice discussion.


#8

You can go directly to google.com/shopping you know, that way the EU don’t have to relax their functioning antithrust laws.
Win-win :stuck_out_tongue:


#9

The admission that

and the assertion that

are not compatible. The assertion is also very black and white. It’s entirely possible (and in my belief true) that antitrust laws are good and this isn’t a legitimate antitrust issue.

A search engine market dominance isn’t the same as a monopoly in a non-information service field. One company owning all the means of energy production is a terrible monopoly. They control prices. They buy up competitors or influence business partners to shut out competitors from the market. Google does none of this and can’t do this. For Google to be a monopoly, you have to consider Google to be the entirety of the internet. They don’t own the internet. They’re not even much of an ISP. But even their actual service provision doesn’t restrict you from using Bing or Yahoo! or Random Joe’s basement programmed search engine. A web browser is inherently agnostic, even if the search box defaults to a particular search engine. Heck, one web browser can be used to download another web browser of choice. Measuring market share of searches the same way you measure other markets just isn’t practical or reasonable. Information services aren’t quantifiable like product markets.

So the EU shouldn’t have to relax their laws to allow customers to use a service in a way they’d want to use it because they need to be protected from good and useful web design? So democratically elected leaders should dictate to their constituents how they experience information services?


#10

I think your thinking is very black and white on this matter, you are asserting that unless a google does this and that, and/or have a complete monopoly on search results everything is dandy. I strongly disagree, and so does the EUs antithrust law. The findings of the EU commisions 14 month ongoing inquiry has been reported on, and shows that google is manipulating searches for their own benifits, unfairly harming competitors and consumers.

Please elaborate. Why is this not an antithrust issue?

Bad rethoric question is bad. I refuse to believe you think this is what is happening. EUs is upholding their antithrust laws and “dictating” google to end the practice that is in breach. Just how is the EU denying customers anything here? Their crappy shopping comparison service is still available to you

Seems to me you are not understanding what this case is about. It is not that google search has a 90% marked share, it is that in their dominant position they have been caught restricting competition and unfair vertical agreements with their own shopping comparison service froogle.


#11

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.