Google hit with record EU fine over Shopping service

[I_Need_a_PC]

Quote

Google has been fined €2.4bn ($2.7bn; £2.1bn) by the European Commission after it ruled the company had abused its power by promoting its own shopping comparison service at the top of search results.

 

The amount is the regulator's largest penalty to date against a company accused of distorting the market.

 

The ruling also orders Google to end its anti-competitive practices within 90 days or face a further penalty.

 

The US company may decide to appeal.

 

Google had previously suggested that Amazon and eBay had more influence over the public's spending habits and that the commission's views "failed to fit the reality of how most people shop online".

 

However, the decision could set a precedent that determines how the EU's civil service handles related complaints about the prominence Google gives to its own maps, flight price results and local business listings within its search tools.

 

The Commission has reportedly been investigating Google since 2010, as result of complaints made by Microsoft and others. 

 

While this is a good step to creating a fairer internet for businesses, the fine is of course very small for the monster of alphabet, which has $172bn of assets. 

 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40406542

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, I_Need_a_PC said:

 

The Commission has reportedly been investigating Google since 2010, as result of complaints made by Microsoft and others. 

 

While this is a good step to creating a fairer internet for businesses, the fine is of course very small for the monster of alphabet, which has $172bn of assets. 

Don't mistake assets for expendable liquid cash.  Although I am sure they could pay it and move on.  It's not always  a carefree option.

 

Also I still think this is a BS move by the EU. 

[Noctus]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also I still think this is a BS move by the EU. 

Why?

[Eniqmatic]

I'm sure this is a repost from something a few weeks ago

 

Edit: repost of this?

 

 

[You_are_a_cunt]

Google is a private company that provides a free service.

It should be in their rights to promote themselves or their services.

 

Looks like a BS move to me aswell.

[LUUD18]

31 minutes ago, revsilverspine said:

Google is a private company that provides a free service.

It should be in their rights to promote themselves or their services.

 

Looks like a BS move to me aswell.

They have a monopoly in search engines. It is a standard now so they can't do those things.

[Sakkura]

31 minutes ago, Eniqmatic said:

I'm sure this is a repost from something a few weeks ago

 

Edit: repost of this?

 

 

Not a straight repost. It's the same case, just that Google was found guilty a few weeks ago, and now the formal verdict and punishment has been handed down (and turned out to be a bigger fine than anticipated).

[FirstArmada]

40 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

They have a monopoly in search engines. It is a standard now so they can't do those things.

It isn't a monopoly, there are other options just none as good as Google.

[Drak3]

59 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

They have a monopoly in search engines.

No, they don't. Bing is actually a pretty big competing engine, even if bing.com isn't used directly that much. Siri and Yahoo are two out of a long list of services that offer search, that are either using the Bing engine or are just a reskin of the Bing engine.

[LUUD18]

Just now, Drak3 said:

No, they don't. Bing is actually a pretty big competing engine, even if bing.com isn't used directly that much. Siri and Yahoo are two out of a long list of services that offer search, that are either using the Bing engine or are just a reskin of the Bing engine.

They are still by far the biggest search engine.

[KuJoe]

Also another thing to keep in mind is that Google is NOT a search engine company, they are an advertising company first and foremost.

[Drak3]

Just now, LUUD18 said:

They are still by far the biggest search engine.

But not by a large margin.

[LUUD18]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

But not by a large margin.

Uuuhm 65% of the people use google while only 33% use bing. That is a large margin imo.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Uuuhm 65% of the people use google while only 33% use bing. That is a large margin imo.

That's only looking at those who use bing.com. Like I said, Bing is the engine used widely in other "search" engines, like Yahoo, as well as the engine driving Siri and Cortana. Bing's usage is higher than people think.

[KuJoe]

Does it really matter how big Google is? Google's search engine is a free, public service. How much traffic they get shouldn't matter how they run their company as long as it's not against any laws in the country they are based in.

[Thunderpup]

this reminds me when Microsoft got hit with an anti-trust suit and lost because they included internet explorer as a pack in product with Windows.

 

The other browser makers were upset that it gave MS an unfair advantage.

[Princess Luna]

I would have no issue using Bing should Microsoft have done it at least decent, that thing sucks as bad as the Internet Explorer.

 

Google is just practical, though it is up to who's searching to have some critical thinking and not just accept blindly whatever Google shows... I'm not sure whether I agree or not here, depends whether this billionaire fine money will serve any good end at all or get wasted on political bullshit.

[rattacko123]

Quote

promoting its own shopping comparison service at the top of search results

That's like saying that they are promoting their own search engine service at the top of search results  

[Sakkura]

40 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, they don't. Bing is actually a pretty big competing engine, even if bing.com isn't used directly that much. Siri and Yahoo are two out of a long list of services that offer search, that are either using the Bing engine or are just a reskin of the Bing engine.

Yahoo is virtually unused in Europe, it's vastly more popular in the US.

 

Most of that market share is instead held by Google. Overall, Google has a stranglehold on the search market in Europe.

 

It's not a monopoly in the strict 100% market share sense, but it easily qualifies as a monopoly in legal terms - it has oodles of monopoly power (monopoly power can come into play even with market shares under 50%, let alone the >90% market share Google search has in Europe).

[Sakkura]

32 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

Does it really matter how big Google is? Google's search engine is a free, public service. How much traffic they get shouldn't matter how they run their company as long as it's not against any laws in the country they are based in.

But this is against the law. Also, it's not about what country they are based in. Would you like it if some African company could sell asbestos stuff in the US or Europe just because it was legal in the country they're based in? Most laws apply to the things you're doing in the country where you're doing them. If an American company does something in Europe, it must abide by European laws. If a European company does something in the US, it must abide by American laws.

[KuJoe]

7 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

But this is against the law. Also, it's not about what country they are based in. Would you like it if some African company could sell asbestos stuff in the US or Europe just because it was legal in the country they're based in? Most laws apply to the things you're doing in the country where you're doing them. If an American company does something in Europe, it must abide by European laws. If a European company does something in the US, it must abide by American laws.

Not true, the US can ban the company from selling products/services but fining then instead of outright banning them or pulling their products is just wrong. Forcing an online company to adhere to every law in every country is just sick in so many ways. But who cares about small businesses right? Today Google is the target, tomorrow it could be LMG because their forums or videos violate some obscure law in some city 5000 miles away with a population of 100.

[Coaxialgamer]

1 hour ago, revsilverspine said:

Not exactly. It is the go-to search engine for a vast majority, but it's not the only one.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Limitation on balloon usage. According to EU rules from 1988 children under the age of 8 can not use latex balloons without a supervising parent. And text on the latex balloons must have such a warning on them. This requirement has been set to avoid death and injuries, but...come on! We've all played with balloons and other stuff, why should some regulate this crap? Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Whistle blowers, that scroll out into a a long colored paper tongue when sounded � have now been classified as unsafe for all children under 14. Seriously? Children at the age of 14 are having sex already, but they are not allowed to use whistle blowers? 
Eurocrats ban small fruit. While they claim whatever they claim, they are doing it and it is stupid. Even though they call it a myth, they have come up with regulations here. "The diameter of the fruit is a way of measuring its maturity/development. Fruit grown organically or conventionally have to reach a certain degree of maturity in order to have a reasonable chance of satisfying the consumer." - who is EU to tell me what satisfies me? If I don't like what I see, I simply don't buy it. What if I actually wanted to buy tiny fruits? 
2-for-1 bargains to be banned. There was a news article about it at some point. While EU calls it a myth again, I wouldn't exactly agree with it. They are thinking about it. "This is highly speculative. An expert advisory group made up of EU Member State representatives is producing a series of reports on various options for the development of a single market in commercial communications. These do not represent the 'definitive' view of the Commission, nor is the outcome clear. Only once the group has reported will the Commission work on a Communication setting out its own view." - and that's nonsense. Someone should be shot just for thinking about it. Whom does it actually hurt? 
On the same note...EU rules ban sale of 'too small' kiwis. A wholesaler was banned from selling a consignment of kiwis due to the fact that based on EU laws they were too small. The wholesaler said that he wasn't even permitted to give away the 5,000 Chilean fruits. The required minimum kiwi weight is 62g, but his were mostly 58g. Read more about that at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2199214/EU-rules-ban-sale-of-too-small-kiwis.html. Ain't that simply stupid?
European Union wants to hold programmers liable for software failures. According to what I know, this didn't pass. But again, convicting Bill Gates or any of his programmers for my faulty Microsoft Windows, come on! What's next? If a website doesn't work perfectly and loads too long, I can sue the creator and the owner as an accomplish?

 

 

1 hour ago, FirstArmada said:

It isn't a monopoly, there are other options just none as good as Google.

It doesn't matter if there are alternatives. 

At ~80% market share, google legally has a monopoly, both in the eu and us. Monopoly power doesn't require 100% market share. The uk, for example, sets the monopoly market share threshold at 25% for a single firm. 

[Coaxialgamer]

4 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

Not true, the US can ban the company from selling products/services but fining then instead of outright banning them or pulling their products is just wrong. Forcing an online company to adhere to every law in every country is just sick in so many ways. But who cares about small businesses right? Today Google is the target, tomorrow it could be LMG because their forums or videos violate some obscure law in some city 5000 miles away with a population of 100.

A) Laws are set by country, so the example you gave for lmg couldn't happen. 

B) any company must adhere to the laws in the countries they operate in. They don't have to adhere to us law in the eu and vice versa. 

I don't see the problem here. 

If google doesn't want to operate in a country due to local laws, they should cease operations there. Simple as that. 

Small businesses typically don't operate in multiple countries, so it doesn't affect them. 

[Sakkura]

Just now, KuJoe said:

Not true, the US can ban the company from selling products/services but fining then instead of outright banning them is just wrong. Forcing an online company to adhere to every law in every country is just sick in so many ways. But who cares about small businesses right? Today Google is the target, tomorrow it could be LMG because their forums or videos violate some obscure law in some city 5000 miles away with a population of 100.

This is total nonsense. Of course the US can fine companies too, and it does it all the time. The Swiss company Hoffman-La Roche was fined $500 million by the US DoJ in 1999 ($734 million in 2017 money). The Japanese company Bridgestone was fined $425 million by the US DoJ in 2014. Air France and a few other European airlines were fined $505 million in 2008. And so on.

[WkdPaul]

Thread cleaned.

 

While I understand this has some politics related to it, political discussion are still disallowed;

Quote

No Trolling

• This includes flame wars such as NVIDIA vs AMD, political or religious debate.