EU to File Antitrust Charges Against Google

[Victorious Secret]

 

 

Case set to become biggest competition battle in Brussels since pursuit of Microsoft a decade ago

 

 

In one corner we have Google, a juggernaut. In the other, we have the EU. Which rivals the UN for biggest organization trying to stay relevant in the modern age. 

As much as I enjoy watching lawsuits against companies, I gotta wonder if the EU isn't entirely out to lunch on this one. 6 billion dollars isn't exactly a small amount on any level for any company, even Google. Do the "crimes" really fit such a punishment? 

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows. 

 

 

BRUSSELS—Europe’s antitrust regulator has decided to file formal charges against Google Inc. for violating the bloc’s antitrust laws, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday, stepping up a five-year investigation that is set to become the biggest competition battle in Brussels since the European Union’s pursuit of MicrosoftCorp. a decade ago.

 

EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager made the decision on Tuesday in consultation with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and will inform her fellow EU commissioners at a meeting on Wednesday, the person said.

 

The move reopens the possibility of fines for Google that could theoretically exceed $6 billion.

 

 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-file-antitrust-charges-against-google-1429039881

This post has been promoted to an article

[SIGSEGV]

*Googles what anti-trust is*

[atrash]

Gotta need that money to lend it to Greece perhaps.. /jk

[Sauron]

What is the infringement?

[AlwaysFSX]

So far every source as failed to explain the reasoning for this lawsuit, what are they basing it on other than "breaking antitrust laws?"

[Victorious Secret]

So far every source as failed to explain the reasoning for this lawsuit, what are they basing it on other than "breaking antitrust laws?"

 

News that the EU will formally charge Google with antitrust violations comes after the Federal Trade Commission accidentally leaked a copy of its report on Google’s activities to The Wall Street Journal. In that report, the FTC alleged that Google stole content from rival Internet companies such as Amazon, Yelp and TripAdvisor and then threatened to remove them from its search results if they kept complaining about it.

In its report, the FTC said Google was using “its monopoly power over search to extract the fruits of its rivals’ innovations,” although the commission still neglected to press charges against the firm.

 

[AlwaysFSX]

 

There we go, now update your OP and correct your font color.

[Victorious Secret]

There we go, now update your OP and correct your font color.

 

NEVER! 

[ObscureMammal]

What is the infringement?

 

So far every source as failed to explain the reasoning for this lawsuit, what are they basing it on other than "breaking antitrust laws?"

I was also looking for more details on this. All reports seem vague

 

 

"Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, is to say that the US group will soon be served with a formal charge sheet alleging that it breached antitrust rules by diverting traffic from rivals to favor its own services, according to two people familiar with the case."

 

"The case hinges on whether Google uses its dominance as a search engine to promote its own services -- like YouTube or the Google+ social network -- unfairly over the services of competitors."

[FakezZ]

Gotta need that money to lend it to Greece perhaps.. /s

[mr moose]

So it comes down to plagiarism or copyright infringement?   Just sue google for that,  you can't dictate what search results they include in their data base. It's a private service offered free.  Simply educate the public that googles services are not complete and are subject to unethical business practices, then let the consumer decide whether they want to continue using it.

[LAwLz]

So it comes down to plagiarism or copyright infringement?   Just sue google for that,  you can't dictate what search results they include in their data base. It's a private service offered free.  Simply educate the public that googles services are not complete and are subject to unethical business practices, then let the consumer decide whether they want to continue using it.

"It's a private service offered for free" does not put them above the law. We have strong anti-trust laws because without them the free market would not work.

Since Google has essentially become the gate-keeper to the Internet they have a huge amount of power, and threatening to remove sites from their listings is abuse of that power.

I think EU was stupid when they accused Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows since that didn't hurt any of their competitors. What Google seems to be accused of is threatening to hurt competitors, and that's REALLY wrong. You should never take one company crippling another lightly because it hurts both the company and the consumers.

 

I mean, imagine if Google had decided to not allow any videos mentioning Vessel, and also removed all the links to or about Vessel from their search results. I am not sure how many uses it now but I am willing to bet that it wouldn't even be 1/100 of the users if Google had abused their power to gain an unfair advantage. That's the kind of power Google has, and they should be punished as soon as they show willingness to abuse it.

 

I haven't looked into exactly what they are being accused of in detail so I'm not sure if 6 billion dollars is a fitting punishment, but I don't agree that "they should be allowed to do whatever they want". If they are found guilty then they deserve some punishment (again, not sure how big the punishment should be).

[NateGSR117]

This isn't going to go down well, it Google after all.

[mr moose]

"It's a private service offered for free" does not put them above the law. We have strong anti-trust laws because without them the free market would not work.

Since Google has essentially become the gate-keeper to the Internet they have a huge amount of power, and threatening to remove sites from their listings is abuse of that power.

I think EU was stupid when they accused Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows since that didn't hurt any of their competitors. What Google seems to be accused of is threatening to hurt competitors, and that's REALLY wrong. You should never take one company crippling another lightly because it hurts both the company and the consumers.

 

I mean, imagine if Google had decided to not allow any videos mentioning Vessel, and also removed all the links to or about Vessel from their search results. I am not sure how many uses it now but I am willing to bet that it wouldn't even be 1/100 of the users if Google had abused their power to gain an unfair advantage. That's the kind of power Google has, and they should be punished as soon as they show willingness to abuse it.

 

I haven't looked into exactly what they are being accused of in detail so I'm not sure if 6 billion dollars is a fitting punishment, but I don't agree that "they should be allowed to do whatever they want". If they are found guilty then they deserve some punishment (again, not sure how big the punishment should be).

 

It is not against the law for google to omit search results.   Their dominance in the internet might make them the gate keeper but it does not change the fact it is a private service offered for free and thus no authoritarian organization can dictate how it run it's business.

 

The issue at hand here is that google stole information from amazon, yelp and tripadvisor.  When those three complained google said if you don't shut up and wear it we will make sure you don't feature in our search results.  This is very unethical behaviour sure.  I don't condone it at all.  If google stole the data, then they should be done for IP theft or for copyright infringement.  Yelp should know better,   because the stinging bit here is that YELP have done exactly what google are doing, they have been taken to court over it and the judge found in their favor. 

 

  http://www.businessinsider.com/court-rules-yelp-can-manipulate-reviews-2014-9?IR=T

 

So essentially what we are seeing is Yelp getting a taste of their own medicine and the EU doesn't like it.

[thekeemo]

people here thinking that jsut because its private means they can do what they want... im guessing they arent voting socialist any time soon

[mr moose]

people here thinking that jsut because its private means they can do what they want... im guessing they arent voting socialist any time soon

 

They can arrange the search results any way they want though, The precedent has already been set. That's why I think they need to have better education about this sort of thing rather than piss the money up expensive legal walls  that are not likely to produce results that favor the consumer.

[ltguy]

in other news Google has left Europe and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the EU peasants.  You need google more than google needs you. 

[Trik'Stari]

.....but what are they claiming was actually "committed" by google? Anti-trust I get, but what are the actual offenses they allegedly committed?

[dimitriianghelov]

wait EU tries to be relevant? did a 5 year old write that?

 

if you want to do business in EU either get your shit together or pay the price, all that i have to say

[Northstorm]

in other news Google has left Europe and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the EU peasants.  You need google more than google needs you. 

[patrick3027]

in other news Google has left Europe and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the EU peasants.  You need google more than google needs you. 

 

Phahahaha!

 

You know there are thousands of search engines, right?

[Mindtrickz]

LOL at the American's in this thread upset with the EU for enforcing the law. Maybe if America did the same then private corporations would not be considered "people", run roughshot on the populace, and you would not be just now getting net neutrality.

 

Google allegedly broke the law; and they're now facing the consequence.

[LAwLz]

It is not against the law for google to omit search results.   Their dominance in the internet might make them the gate keeper but it does not change the fact it is a private service offered for free and thus no authoritarian organization can dictate how it run it's business.

 

The issue at hand here is that google stole information from amazon, yelp and tripadvisor.  When those three complained google said if you don't shut up and wear it we will make sure you don't feature in our search results.  This is very unethical behaviour sure.  I don't condone it at all.  If google stole the data, then they should be done for IP theft or for copyright infringement.  Yelp should know better,   because the stinging bit here is that YELP have done exactly what google are doing, they have been taken to court over it and the judge found in their favor. 

 

  http://www.businessinsider.com/court-rules-yelp-can-manipulate-reviews-2014-9?IR=T

 

So essentially what we are seeing is Yelp getting a taste of their own medicine and the EU doesn't like it.

I haven't looked into the case so I won't talk about it. You are fundamentally wrong in "it's a free product from a private company so there are allowed to do whatever they want" though. It's both morally and legally wrong.

 

It really does not matter, at all, that Google search is a free product. Internet Explorer is a free product as well, and the fact that it was free was one of the main reasons why Microsoft was hit with an antitrust lawsuit. Antitrust laws even applies to non-profit organizations.

 

Because of the antitrust laws and Google's dominance in search it is illegal for them to do whatever they want with their search results. I suggest you look up antitrust laws if you do not understand why that is, and why it's such an incredibly important regulation for the free market.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Gotta need that money to lend it to Greece perhaps.. /jk

It's /s not /jk. ayyyy lmao

[mr moose]

I haven't looked into the case so I won't talk about it. You are fundamentally wrong in "it's a free product from a private company so there are allowed to do whatever they want" though. It's both morally and legally wrong.

 

It really does not matter, at all, that Google search is a free product. Internet Explorer is a free product as well, and the fact that it was free was one of the main reasons why Microsoft was hit with an antitrust lawsuit. Antitrust laws even applies to non-profit organizations.

 

Because of the antitrust laws and Google's dominance in search it is illegal for them to do whatever they want with their search results. I suggest you look up antitrust laws if you do not understand why that is, and why it's such an incredibly important regulation for the free market.

 

You misunderstand,  this has been tried in a court already. the court found that yelp were free to promote or demote results from their review website at will because it is their data and their service.  The precedent has already been set, whether you like it or not there is no law that says google can't place some results  right at the bottom or prioritize others.  There are a few cases where consumer affairs authorities have said that paid results need to be differentiated from the rest (this is antitrust).  But that is not the same as placing a search result at the end. 

This is what is claimed Yelp did:

One of the businesses, Santa Barbara-based Cats and Dogs animal hospital, claimed a Yelp representative said the company would hide negative reviews or place them lower on the page in exchange for advertising.

 

 

This is what the court ruled:

Online review site Yelp can lower or raise the rating of a business depending on whether it advertises with the company

 

 

Google is no different in this case:

 

 

In that report, the FTC alleged that Google stole content from rival Internet companies such as Amazon, Yelp and TripAdvisor and then threatened to remove them from its search results if they kept complaining about it.

 

 

I am not saying any of this is fair or just, only that changing search results is currently legal and the precedent has already been set.