Google loses appeal over EU antitrust ruling, but fine cut to $4.12 billion

[darknessblade]

Summary

The European Union’s General Court on Wednesday upheld an antitrust ruling against Google’s parent company, Alphabet, but reduced its fine to 4.125 billion euros ($4.12 billion) from 4.34 billion euros.

 

Quotes

Quote

The European Union’s General Court on Wednesday upheld an antitrust ruling against Google’s parent company, Alphabet, but reduced its fine to 4.125 billion euros ($4.12 billion) from 4.34 billion euros.

The dispute between Google and the EU courts is over whether it uses the Android operating system to quash competition, and was initiated against the company in 2015.

 

The court said it “largely confirms the European Commission’s decision that Google imposed unlawful restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine.”

In a statement provided to CNBC, Google said: “We are disappointed that the Court did not annul the decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and around the world.” 

 

The initial fine was issued by the European Commission in 2018 and was the largest ever for Google. It said that around 80% of Europeans used Android and that Google gave an unfair advantage to its apps, such as Chrome and Search, by forcing smartphone makers to pre-install them in a bundle with its app store, Play.

 

My thoughts

This is not even a DMA/DSA [digital markets act/digital services act ] lawsuit, and the EU is properly fining google for monopoly abuse within the android Ecosystem

If the EU Had added the DMA/DSA rules on top of this lawsuit/appeal, the fines could have become even higher.

 

At least its a good sign that the HIGH Fine is still a HIGH Fine, and not just a mere fraction of the original fine, just like with many other court cases like this where a company gets fined for 4 Billion, but it gets reduced to a mere fraction of that fine, being at most 40 Million.

 

Sources

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/eu-court-backs-antitrust-ruling-against-google-but-reduces-fine.html

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-09/cp220147en.pdf

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/eu-hits-alphabet-google-with-android-antitrust-fine.html

[Brooksie359]

I guess my question is what would have been the alternative? That all of the phone makers would package their phones with their own proprietary stores and web browsers? Not saying it's not monopolistic in a sense but I would rather have Google stuff pre-installed.

[jaslion]

17 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I guess my question is what would have been the alternative? That all of the phone makers would package their phones with their own proprietary stores and web browsers? Not saying it's not monopolistic in a sense but I would rather have Google stuff pre-installed.

Kind off what was happening with later firefox and blackberry os. Where they have their own app store but also support all android and google apps natively.

 

This way the os was free to pick but everyone still got to use the same services if they pleased.

 

Basically see it like people using different browsers. The websites work fine since at the core its all the same stuff.

 

An example of a current one would be sailfish os rn. It works fine with most android apps right out of the box (ones that need certain deep security features like banking apps n such do not work).

 

Even kai os could funnily enough run android apps due to people backporting the firefox os compatibility layer for it to kai os. It was a one off thing basically as its mainly html5 webapp focused but since its a firefox os fork there was enough there to get simple apps to work enough to show

[Rauten]

With all the money going to the war, or the consequences of the war, in our economies, any bit of help is appreciated. Thanks, Google! 

/s, just in case. Fudge 'em.

[strajk-]

The EU should pass a law to forbid the sale of a phone that doesn't have its bootloader unlocked, while we're at it, also prohibit the sale of phones you can't easily replace the battery like we used to have in the 90s to early 00s...

Locking Phones to certain SIM Carriers was massive cancer until that was prohibited, buying something you can't easily extend its life by either replacing whatever ROM it is running or battery is dying is criminal in my eyes, massive amounts of e-waste could be prevented with those two moves.

 

Same goes for laptops, getting harder and harder to have access to the battery to replace it, I have a Surface Pro 4 and GOD DAMN is it horrible to replace the battery.

[WhitetailAni]

3 minutes ago, strajk- said:

also prohibit the sale of phones you can't easily replace the battery like we used to have in the 90s to early 00s...

Seems you're talking about iPhones. It's not very difficult to swap batteries in those, and Apple charges $50 (if you have an iPhone with Touch ID) or $70 (if you have an iPhone with Face ID). Considering you also get a 90 day warranty on those parts not failing and an Apple original battery, that's quite good in my opinion.

Also, given how easy it was for those things to pop out, I don't want to see someone dropping their phone, then stepping on their battery by accident.

[GhostRoadieBL]

All this says to me is in the EU if you waste everyone's time with a losing appeal you get a 200 million euro discount. Instead of raising the fine higher and discouraging further wastes of time.

[tim0901]

8 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

All this says to me is in the EU if you waste everyone's time with a losing appeal you get a 200 million euro discount. Instead of raising the fine higher and discouraging further wastes of time.

Reading the document there is a reason for this reduction (albeit in legal code):

Quote

Addressing, in the second place, the alleged infringement of the right to be heard, the General Court observes that Google’s criticisms in that regard constitute the procedural aspect of the complaints put forward to challenge the merits of the finding as to the abusive nature of certain revenue share agreements, in so far as they seek to challenge the denial of a hearing on the AEC test applied in that context. Given that the Commission refused Google a hearing, even though it had sent Google two letters of facts supplementing substantially the substance and scope of the approach initially set out in the statement of objections in that respect, but without adopting, as it ought to have done, a supplementary statement of objections followed by a hearing, the General Court considers that the Commission infringed Google’s rights of defence and thus deprived Google of the opportunity better to ensure its defence by developing its arguments in a hearing. The General Court adds that the value of a hearing is all the more apparent in the present case, given the deficiencies previously identified in the Commission’s application of the AEC test. Consequently, the finding as to the abusive nature of the portfolio-based revenue share agreements must be annulled on that basis also.

In non-legal terms: Google had the right to a hearing that the EU Commission refused to give them - the legal procedure wasn't followed correctly - which infringed on Google's rights of defence. As such, the related finding was annulled. This was only a small part of the ruling though and the fine was adjusted accordingly.

[darknessblade]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I guess my question is what would have been the alternative? That all of the phone makers would package their phones with their own proprietary stores and web browsers? Not saying it's not monopolistic in a sense but I would rather have Google stuff pre-installed.

The alternative would be something like the browser choice screen, that was a common sight in the EU version of windows 7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

 

Where you can choose all default apps for everything {app store, browser, video player, music player}

 

[wanderingfool2]

Quote

It said that around 80% of Europeans used Android and that Google gave an unfair advantage to its apps, such as Chrome and Search, by forcing smartphone makers to pre-install them in a bundle with its app store, Play.

Overall I do think some of the moves Google made were too monopolistic, but the above quote I personally don't feel is completely fair.

 

When you develop something that ultimately is free or highly subsidized in purchase cost, I do feel that it should grant some extra rights in regards to putting certain things in that benefit yourself.

 

Bits where I do feel Google cross the line, the imposing of the restrictions of making default apps but then also preventing the manufacturer from creating a device that uses the true open source Android (terribly worded, sorry, but essentially there are the two versions of Android one that is used vs the open source version which it's pretty much choose one).  From my understanding they are pretty much told they are only allowed using Android as well (so can't use a competitor, could be wrong in this one).  Either way, these actions I feel are the ones that make it unacceptable.

[Sauron]

On 9/14/2022 at 3:16 PM, Brooksie359 said:

I guess my question is what would have been the alternative? That all of the phone makers would package their phones with their own proprietary stores and web browsers? Not saying it's not monopolistic in a sense but I would rather have Google stuff pre-installed.

Most manufacturers would likely have those anyway, however if given a choice some viable alternatives might have popped up. For the web browser specifically there are dozens of options, many of which are just fine.

[Supreme Calamitas]

4.12 BILLION????? 

 

NOW THATS A LOT OF DAMAGE

[williamcll]

Does this mean I can remove the rest of the google bloat without changing ROMs?