Google to be hit by €1B ($1.12B) fine within weeks as EU finds it guilty in antitrust case

[Maxxtraxx]

On 6/16/2017 at 5:53 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

For those not seeing what the issue is, I think it's a minor detail.  They're not just using their own products and services to promote each other - that is common and fine imo - they're taking what is supposed to be a generic thing and giving their own stuff preferential treatment.

 

Who ever said that it is supposed to be a generic thing? It's a service that google offers on their own website. Is amazon liable for selling products that are "amazon's choice" because that product is getting additional exposure? That's not fair to the other brands on their website.

 

On 6/16/2017 at 6:13 PM, Yoinkerman said:

That's the point.  It's anticompetitive.

 

Google is a company who sells products and offers services and exposure to other websites and products, Is Walmart being anti competitive by putting certain products on the end-caps of shelving units to give them additional exposure to the buying public?

 

[vanished]

Just now, Maxxtraxx said:

 

Who ever said that it is supposed to be a generic thing? It's a service that google offers on their own website. Is amazon liable for selling products that are "amazon's choice" because that product is getting additional exposure? That's not fair to the other brands on their website.

 

It's not about selling them, it's about representing them fairly.  If they let the results come up however they should based on fair criteria that's been agreed upon, that's one thing, but if they specially code it so their own products go to the top regardless and get a larger link or something, that's there they cross the line.  At least that's my understanding of the problem here.

[Maxxtraxx]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's not about selling them, it's about representing them fairly.  If they let the results come up however they should based on fair criteria that's been agreed upon, that's one thing, but if they specially code it so their own products go to the top regardless and get a larger link or something, that's there they cross the line.  At least that's my understanding of the problem here.

My thought:

 

Google is a business that offers a service to people and to companies that it has designed and operated for many many years, how it offers it's services to companies and the end user should be Google's own personal choice, just as using their services by people is that persons own personal choice. They are not a socialist country that must offer government sponsored services to everyone equally. They are a private entity that runs a business and should be free to offer their services as they choose, if the companies buying their services do not like it or the end user that is using their services does not like it then they are free to choose another service as their heart desires. Google is a company, that sells things, they are not a public park that everyone must be free to use equally.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Again we are trying to fix the same problem, but we have different solutions in mind. What you are saying is what is currently happening and it cannot work. You cannot keep the government in check because everyone is corrupted by having power. Even if you change the people in charge the same happens. The only reason companies do not go bankrupt is through monopolies which are also created by the government regulations in the way I described with my hardships in starting a company. 

 

What you are describing is a futile no win situation. In which it sounds like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Why I disagree is that we as a race of survivalists have made it this far into the current age of corporate/industrial evolution. So there has to be some merit in democracy and communally dictated governance.  Countries that suffer the most also have less democratic rights, while at the other end of the spectrum is the US with so many democratic rights that corporate America run the place.   

 

Regulations on trade practices and consumer law have been demonstrably positive in terms of fair free trade. While lack of regulation is at the heart of so many failed startups.  Sometimes you just can't compete with the big boys when they control everything unchecked.

 

[vanished]

Just now, Maxxtraxx said:

My thought:

 

Google is a business that offers a service to people and to companies that it has designed and operated for many many years, how it offers it's services to companies and the end user should be Google's own personal choice, just as using their services by people is that persons own personal choice. They are not a socialist country that must offer government sponsored services to everyone equally. They are a private entity that runs a business and should be free to offer their services as they choose, if the companies buying their services do not like it or the end user that is using their services does not like it then they are free to choose another service as their heart desires. Google is a company, that sells things, they are not a public park that everyone must be free to use equally.

tbh I do find this all very strange and uncomfortable.  It walks a line for me and I can see the logic in both sides, perhaps even yours more than the EUs.

I've seen anti-competitive and anti-monopoly cases and scenarios in the past that were 1000% clear as day, and imo, this is definitely not one of them... not even close.

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Again we are trying to fix the same problem, but we have different solutions in mind. What you are saying is what is currently happening and it cannot work. You cannot keep the government in check because everyone is corrupted by having power. Even if you change the people in charge the same happens. The only reason companies do not go bankrupt is through monopolies which are also created by the government regulations in the way I described with my hardships in starting a company. 

Some amount of regulation will always be required, a true free market is an unachievable ideal that cannot happen for meany reasons. Companies in the past have done such egregious things, particularly environmental, that such great harm can happen too quickly and permanently so waiting for market reaction is not possible.

 

History is littered with so many examples of this it is why regulations have come in to existence.

[Sparru]

The business world needs regulations for the same reasons societies need laws. Without them everyone who are weak gets exploited and anyone strong who pose a threat will be killed off. You can not depend on human kindness and good morals.

[Maxxtraxx]

8 minutes ago, Sparru said:

The business world needs regulations for the same reasons societies need laws. Without them everyone who are weak gets exploited and anyone strong who pose a threat will be killed off. You can not depend on human kindness and good morals.

Agreed, laws and regulations are necessary to some extent. But just like laws they can go and be taken WAAAAY to far, for example the point we are at now where laws are being written or interpreted that directly interfere with an individuals right to abide by their own conscience, that being a gross overreach of the law.

 

My personal feeling here is that Google is not a public service guaranteed to offer 100% unbiased results or operated by a governing body who is required to offer equal services to all. The EU's stand on this is a gross over reach of law.

 

Google is a business. Period.

 

Example that matches what they have decided google is guilty of:

 

A grocery store puts certain products on the endcaps of isles for additional exposure because they want to sell/move a certain product especially well for any number of reasons. If google puts certain products on its "internet isle endcaps" why are they guilty of being anti competitive?

 

Should the grocery stores be fined for being anti competitive?

 

Or should google be able to sell products the same way... because they are a For Profit Company who offers a large range of services to many people. They are not refusing to sell other products or hampering people's ability to find that product in their store(just like a grocery store) they are calling attention to certain products inside their own store for any number of reasons.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Agreed, laws and regulations are necessary to some extent. But just like laws they can go and be taken WAAAAY to far, for example the point we are at now where laws are being written or interpreted that directly interfere with an individuals right to abide by their own conscience, that being a gross overreach of the law.

 

My personal feeling here is that Google is not a public service guaranteed to offer 100% unbiased results or operated by a governing body who is required to offer equal services to all. The EU's stand on this is a gross over reach of law.

 

Google is a business. Period.

 

Example that matches what they have decided google is guilty of:

 

A grocery store puts certain products on the endcaps of isles for additional exposure because they want to sell/move a certain product especially well for any number of reasons. If google puts certain products on its "internet isle endcaps" why are they guilty of being anti competitive?

 

Should the grocery stores be fined for being anti competitive?

 

Or should google be able to sell products the same way... because they are a For Profit Company who offers a large range of services to many people. They are not refusing to sell other products or hampering people's ability to find that product in their store(just like a grocery store) they are calling attention to certain products inside their own store for any number of reasons.

That is a good analogy,  I thought I would never see one on ltt so thank you.

[Sparru]

13 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

My personal feeling here is that Google is not a public service guaranteed to offer 100% unbiased results or operated by a governing body who is required to offer equal services to all.

Now this is something I wouldn't say is clear at all. Infact if a survey was conducted I'm sure people would think that Google search is not biased and should stay as so. If it's ok to show biased results then wouldn't it also be ok for Google to just, well stop showing links to their competitors? I mean just to add to that grocery store analogy. Just like the store has the right to choose what products to put on its isle endcaps, they can also choose what products to sell in their stores at all, right?

[Maxxtraxx]

Just now, Sparru said:

Now this is something I wouldn't say is clear at all. Infact if a survey was conducted I'm sure people would think that Google search is not biased and should stay as so. If it's ok to show biased results then wouldn't it also be ok for Google to just, well stop showing links to their competitors? I mean just to add to that grocery store analogy. Just like the store has the right to choose what products to put on its isle endcaps, they can also choose what products to sell in their stores at all, right?

But, what people think is often not reality and Google's ability to freely operate their company and services legally is not and should not be dependent upon what people "think" about a service.

[Sparru]

2 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

But, what people think is often not reality and Google's ability to freely operate their company and services legally is not and should not be dependent upon what people "think" about a service.

Yes and no. What people think about something is relevant since deceiving consumers is illegal because of consumer protection. If Google has no intention to show the absolute best results it can get, then maybe it's not clear enough and doesn't convey that message properly. I don't know how exactly the Google shopping links were shown so I can't say if they were clear enough with it.

[KuJoe]

I hate seeing a US-based company getting hit with fines by another country's government, especially over something as moronic as this. Googexit time?

[Yoinkerman]

2 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

 

Who ever said that it is supposed to be a generic thing? It's a service that google offers on their own website. Is amazon liable for selling products that are "amazon's choice" because that product is getting additional exposure? That's not fair to the other brands on their website.

 

 

Google is a company who sells products and offers services and exposure to other websites and products, Is Walmart being anti competitive by putting certain products on the end-caps of shelving units to give them additional exposure to the buying public?

 

Wal-Mart doesn't sell Wal-Mart brand stuff to compete with other products in store.  (Also, great value is not produced by Wal-Mart.)

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

Wal-Mart doesn't sell Wal-Mart brand stuff to compete with other products in store.  (Also, great value is not produced by Wal-Mart.)

Supermarkets do have self branded "value" products, or do in my country.

[Yoinkerman]

Just now, leadeater said:

Supermarkets do have self branded "value" products, or do in my country.

They do here in Canada and in the US.  However, the products are not produced by the grocers, they are made elsewhere and labeled as the house brand.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

They do here in Canada and in the US.  However, the products are not produced by the grocers, they are made elsewhere and labeled as the house brand.

In Aus, the brand is owned by the shop but the production is tendered, there are a few exceptions like the Ozito brand which is owned by wesfarmers who owns bunnings (the shop it is exclusively sold in).

 

Regardless of whether walmart actually makes the product or not, they contract the manufacture and own the brand name therefore they are producing and selling competing products.  So if we were to apply the EU laws to walmart then all the products would have to share equal positions down each isle and no isle end displays or entry displays would be allowed, unless they placed every brand there equally.

[laminutederire]

12 hours ago, FakezZ said:

Oh yeees more regulation haha. GIMME DAT REGULATION! Because regulations have always worked... Not.

Because on the other hand capitalism works? Not really either.

Issue with not regulating at all is that some people lack the ethical values to do things and it would quickly descend to hell with people stealing, killing and other ways of ripping off other people. Pure competition isn't healthy competition in most cases.

 

[PacketAtlas]

If they want to promote their product more than others on THEIR website then they should be able too.... Screw these greedy corporations wanting more moniez

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, FakezZ said:

BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH REGULATIONS!

Starting an ISP is not hard because of government regulations. It's hard because it is hard.

Just because your government might be shit does not mean we should get rid of all other governments in all situations. History has time and time again shown that a completely free market with no regulations does not work. You can interpret history all you want, but any rational person will be able to find examples where companies were doing extremely bad things and the free market did not put them out of business. Chance was forced from government which in the end benefited everyone.

 

7 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

My personal feeling here is that Google is not a public service guaranteed to offer 100% unbiased results or operated by a governing body who is required to offer equal services to all. The EU's stand on this is a gross over reach of law.

 

Google is a business. Period.

While I agree with some parts of your post, "Google is a business" and "Google is a for profit business" is not an excuse for anything. I can't dump radiative waste into drinking water because "I am a for profit company, and disposing of this in a proper manner cuts into my profits", nor am I allowed to cause a gas leak at my competitor's factory because "they were selling better than me and I need to make more money".

 

Being for profit does not mean you do not have any responsibilities and that you are above the law.

 

I've seen a very worrying trend in people just saying "well X has to make money so what they are doing is justified". They say it all the time regarding Linus and the every dropping quality of videos they push out, and now they are saying it about (allegedly) anticompetitive behavior from what's essentially a monopoly.

[Sakkura]

On 16/6/2017 at 10:19 PM, Ryujin2003 said:

How about, if you don't want Google ads and shopping suggestions, use a different browser? They own the platform. They should be able to. Same thing with Bing and Yahoo.

Hey, I know this may come as a huge surprise, but... you can google things in browsers not made by google.

[MadyTehWolfie]

On 6/16/2017 at 6:13 PM, Yoinkerman said:

That's the point.  It's anticompetitive.

No it just makes no sense. Why should a business have to promote other businesses at all? They shouldn't have to or need too. Honda dealerships don't promote Ford products. Google shouldn't have to promote other people's products unless they pay them to. It's not anti competitive to not want to promote your business rivals products.

[Sakkura]

40 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

No it just makes no sense. Why should a business have to promote other businesses at all? They shouldn't have to or need too. Honda dealerships don't promote Ford products. Google shouldn't have to promote other people's products unless they pay them to. It's not anti competitive to not want to promote your business rivals products.

They aren't being obligated to promote other businesses.

 

If Google publishes a catalog of Google products, services, and offers, obviously it would be fine if it only contained stuff from Google. But if they make a search engine available, that's a very different matter - if that only linked to Google stuff that would be blatantly anti-competitive. In this case it merely gives Google products and services preferential treatment, but that's still anti-competitive when a search engine is supposed to be the neutral way to find things on the web. And Google has a near-monopoly on web search, particularly in Europe.

[Jito463]

Oh, boy, time to wade in deep.

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is why you have dumb a** laws that allow at+t to write contracts that forbid you from taking legal action against them when they force you to pay more under the same contract

 

Basically the people need to keep their governments in check and the governments need to keep the greedy in check.   But both required regulation in order to do that.

Regarding AT&T, you would need to prove to me such a law exists.  While it's certainly possible AT&T may have such a clause in their contracts, that doesn't mean one couldn't take them to court anyway.  There's just no guarantee that one would win the case.

 

As to your second point, that is true to an extent.  However, regulations can go overboard, which is - I believe - the point that @FakezZ was making.

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) Government passing laws that benefits big companies is a problem, but saying that we should therefore abolish all regulations is quite frankly stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding how the world works.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"?

 

2) Want an example? ISPs in the US are working together to ensure that customers do not have multiple choices. In some areas, ISP actually agreed with each other "you get this area, if I get this one".

"Ohh but the free market would sort that out because bad companies won't get any customers". That's not how the world works. Starting an ISP is extremely hard (near impossible these days) and there are only a few companies that can do it. That's why you need government regulations to ensure that the companies don't just screw their customers and kill competitors.

 

3) Or how about environmental protection? Properly taking care of for example radioactive waste is very expensive, so without regulations companies would not do it. If the damage is only caused after a long period of time then customers wouldn't even notice it until it was too late. All they would see would be company A having lower prices (because they for example dump chemicals into the drinking water) with the same quality as company B (which has more overhead because they properly dispose of their chemicals).

So company A would for example cause cancer in people who were living near their factories, but since those effects could appear 30 years from now everyone would be happy in the short term. And before you say anything, that's just one example I made up now to show that your logic is flawed. Companies can greatly benefit from screwing over their customers, and customers might not realize it before it's too late, or they might not have any choice (such as with ISPs in the US).

Regarding your first point (which I delineated above), I concur.  No regulations at all is not the answer.  However, we also shouldn't desire a government that over regulates to the point where it's nigh impossible to do business.

 

As to your second point, that's why local governments are so important in the US.  The federal government was limited intentionally by our country's founders, because they understood the implications of a far away government having all-powerful control.  In such an event, you rely on your city or state government to create an environment where competition is encouraged.  For example, in the city where I live we basically had the choice of cable (Time Warner, now Spectrum) and DSL (Windstream).  While there are other ISPs in the city, they all piggyback off those two services.  Within the past year, a new company has emerged now offering Fiber internet.  Competition which was encouraged by our city government.

 

And for your final point, a company should be free to do as they wish to make a profit, so long as it doesn't harm others in the process.  If such an event were to occur, then that would be a legitimate cause for governmental interference (either local or federal).

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

A free market works, but only if all the players are fair.    I personally believe in a free market, I like the ideal of a global economy where everyone trades the same currency has the same capacity to earn and if they wish to capitalise they can, It's just that it is not possible without government regulation because (as I have said countless times) humans are greedy and when they run big companies they have more power to be greedy with.   Regulation is necessary.   Governments are necessary.

Governments are a necessary evil, but don't kid yourself that they are a good thing.  There is a legitimate reason to have government, but we shouldn't rely on them as the sole arbiters for all that is fair.  That's why the US has separation of powers, because too much power in the hands of any one person or group of people is a mistake.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

while at the other end of the spectrum is the US with so many democratic rights that corporate America run the place.

You've been listening to propaganda.  While there is certainly a case to be made about limiting lobbyists in our government, it's beyond stretching things to claim that corporations run America.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I've seen a very worrying trend in people just saying "well X has to make money so what they are doing is justified". They say it all the time regarding Linus and the every dropping quality of videos they push out, and now they are saying it about (allegedly) anticompetitive behavior from what's essentially a monopoly.

This goes back to my previous point above, that corporations exist to make a profit, and so long as no is harmed (physically or financially) by the actions of that corporations, then they should be allowed to operate as they see fit.

 

Does Linus putting out a video you dislike, cause you any physical or financial hardship?

No.

 

Does Google promoting their own products on their own search engine cause other companies physical or financial hardship?

While it may certainly benefit Google, it doesn't automatically equate that it harms another.

 

 

Anyway, I'm running late for work now because of how much time this took.  Any responses made to this post will have to be replied to later.

[ChineseChef]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

-snip- But if they make a search engine available, that's a very different matter -snip-

Why though?  Why is a search engine different?  Why is that one business different than every single other business on the face of the planet??  Why does a search engine have to legally be unbiased?  They don't have a monopoly, regionally or legally.  They have tons of competitors, that they can't block access to even if they wanted.

Should the consumers/users try to use the most unbiased search engine?  Of course.  But who decides what is unbiased vs algorithmic, and makes that decision without bias?

Google knows their search algorithm, it wouldn't be hard to perfectly design their ads to provide the best results for their algorithm, even if they didn't favor their own ads outright.

Frankly, unless the government wants to fully fund a search engine like Google, they shouldn't be able to say what kind of results Google is allowed to give as long as they aren't false.  As a private company, Google should be allowed to straight up block all other competitors within their search results.

Because what would the EU or any gov't do if Google simply said, no.  That they wouldn't pay.  Will Google get blocked?  What if Google decided that due to this "over-burdensome regulation" they were just going to fire all EU employees and pull all business assets out of the EU?  Who would realistically replace Google if the EU decided to block access?  How would the EU even block such an entity?

To me it is only a matter of time before one of the mega companies just starts telling countries "no" to absurd fines like this.  And threatens to just close shop within that countries borders.  It's not like Google needs brick and mortar buildings in those countries for people to access it.

As an aside, I don't view companies telling countries to "get stuffed" as a good thing.  But stupid fines like this are what will push them to start pushing back.  And when they do, they may find they hold more sway than the gov'ts trying to tell them what to do.