Google hit with $2.7 Billion Fine by EU

Google fined $2.7 Billion by EU commission

[jmccormac]

Looks like Google has been hit with a 2.4 Billion Euro / $2.7 Billion fine over its shopping venture.

[bbc.com...]

Given 90 days to end the practice of face further fines. Not good for Google.

Regards...jmcc

[mosxu]

I think google got it all wrong here thinking that they have competition from amazon or ebay which is not true it is about search where a monopoly exists in Europe and not what presses google internally and that is lack of buyer traffic.

50% of buyers type direct in their browser amazon.com and buy there no need for a search in google. Another 30% start at ebay and other brands so google may be left with 20% of buyer traffic. To stay on the right side of the law they should have started google-shopping.com and compete in the rankings like everybody else.

[nonstop]

they should make it a SERP result just like any other site,

I guess the problem is nobody would believe that Google was fairly applying it's Algo to it's own site, they'd need to open up the Algo for independent inspection.

[Shaddows]

Mods, I have not checked for copyright, but please see EEA Article 54, of which Google is in breach, in full:

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the territory covered by this Agreement or in
a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement in so far as it may
affect trade between Contracting Parties.
1.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby
placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary
obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the
subject of such contracts
[eftasurv.int...]

As noted earlier
a) No prices involved
b) No suppression of innovation
c) Googles T&Cs are universal for all users
d) Google does not stipulate by contract that either suppliers (ecom sites) or users may not use other search engines or comparison services

YMMV, as someone once said.

[mosxu]

@Shaddows

is not that simple you need a law degree plus some years of experience in the field to interpret correctly the article 54

just it is very easy to slip on the wrong side of the law and not just with regards to article 54...

the fact that compensations will be possible is great news for anyone who unfairly was not allowed to compete

[Shaddows]

Absolute claptrap, law degree. You might need a law degree to parley that article into a €2.4M fine, but that law is simple enough as is.

Many members will be directors or sole traders. Some of them will rely on council, some will be used to reading legalese. I read legalese on a regular basis.

Not that the EEA Articles are in legalese. They are in loosely-drafted plain English. They are frankly disgraceful, in terms of drafting.

You are falling into a terrible fallacy; "I agree with the outcome, so the means are justified" - I'd fine Google another couple of billion in terms of natural justice, but the law does not support such a position.

[Shepherd]

great news for anyone who unfairly was not allowed to compete

My website was not promoted on your website, that is unfair and I should be compensated.


All of this is the product of a "participation trophy" society. You do not win by existing.

[Shepherd]

It's not fair that the retail space on "High Street" is so limited and expensive. The government should seize the land and distribute it evenly between all vendors that want to sell goods there. The previous owners of the land should be fined for not allowing all to compete.

[engine]

I'm not sure of the connection there, especially as it's not dominated by one single retailer.

[mosxu]

@shepherd

I hope that there are many websites like yours to satisfy consumers and businesses and your website is not the only railway in the country. The law does not apply for your website. Relax.

[Shepherd]

No connection intended, simply sharing an equally ridiculous concept.

It seems that the common thought is that it is ok to force one business to promote their competition, where do we stop? It's not "fair" that you live in a nicer house than I do.

[Shepherd]

The law does not apply for your website.

Not sure what that means, do we not apply laws evenly to/on everyone?

google is not a railway.

[jmccormac]

Irrelevant, google's SERPs are not a public service.

The EU commission doesn't care what you think. It cares about the EU market and Google's machinations.

Regards...jmcc

[Shepherd]

The EU commission doesn't care what you think.

Your intimate knowledge of the EU Commission's thoughts aside; that sounds pretty scary, the government cares not what the governed thinks...

[jmccormac]

Just to quote the EUC press release for those with their own interpretation of events:

The European Commission has fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.

Instead, Google abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors.

What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation.

Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query into the Google search engine in relation to which Google's comparison shopping service wants to show results, these are displayed at or near the top of the search results.
Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results:

Google has abused this market dominance by giving its own comparison shopping service an illegal advantage.

Regards...jmcc

[jmccormac]

Your intimate knowledge of the EU Commission's thoughts aside; that sounds pretty scary, the government cares not what the governed thinks...

See above. Read the press release rather than relying on the usual clueless SEOs and web devs and their pretend law degrees that they got free with a box of breakfast cereal. Google broke EU anti-trust law. Google got caught. Google got fined. It now can appeal the ruling or it can pay the fine.

Regards...jmcc

[londrum]

why do these things take so long to come to a conclusion, that's what i want to know. how long has this investigation been going on for now? then they're giving them another three months to come up with changes, then the EU will probably have another three months to consider it, then back and forth, back and forth, back and forth again, by which time google will have earned ten times the amount the fine was worth

[Shepherd]

I can not speak for everyone, like apparently you can, but my law degree came from the University of Akron.

Again, I have not disputed any of the facts. I only ask, when they come for your website using the precedent set here will you be cheering as loudly.

[Shaddows]

usual clueless SEOs and web devs and their pretend law degrees that they got free with a box of breakfast cereal

No need to get nasty. Saying the law does not support the commissioners' interpretation of it is not illegal. Unless a commissioner says so, obviously. Then they can fine you.

Look at my original two posts- I thought Google was fully in the wrong and being a bit dim operating in the EU without being clear on EU law. I then looked up the law. You do not need a law degree to read laws. Many members will be directors of multi-million dollar/euro/pound businesses, and will be familiar with reading and complying with the law. Sure, you get council when it gets a bit complicated, or you plan to sail a bit close to the wind, but the law is not, generally speaking, arcane.

Google broke EU anti-trust law. Google got caught. Google got fined. It now can appeal the ruling or it can pay the fine.

Yeah, that's pretty much the long and short of it, but I can see why Google thinks they did nothing illegal.

I'm genuinely shocked that a €2.4 Billion fine can come from the law as drafted.

[mosxu]

@londrum

Good point. Is it like how much is the fine? 2.4 billion? Well, Europeans should pay more for NATO defence? And again small businesses will have NO SAY.

[heisje]

Amusing fact is Google has also breached U.S. anti-monopoly legislation, stricter than EU law, but the silence from U.S. regulators is deafening despite complaints and facts on the ground.

.

[engine]

Moderator note:
Please, let's not drift the topic, and let's not have personal remarks. Thank you.

Back on topic...

Once again, this is because Google holds a dominant position. You could do the same with our own sites and nobody will take notice. Once you have as much as 90% of the search market you're on the radar of the regulators.

Importantly, the competitors are not going to be promoted. There are no instructions to do that. It's all about Google's own service right at the top, and not a single competitor in sight.

[jmccormac]

Again, I have not disputed any of the facts. I only ask, when they come for your website using the precedent set here will you be cheering as loudly.

I don't have 80% of the market's search traffic.

Regards...jmcc

[engine]

For the record, here's the European Commission's fact file which details the reasons, the history, and how it came about the fine. It's worth reading.
[europa.eu...]

[Shepherd]

I don't have 80% of the market's search traffic.

A slippery slope does not care if you are wearing the same shoes as the person who fell before you.

Today's Decision is a precedent which establishes the framework for the assessment of the legality of this type of conduct. At the same time, it does not replace the need for a case-specific analysis to account for the specific characteristics of each market.

[heisje]

The official EU reasoning:

[The Commission] objects to the fact that Google has leveraged its market dominance in general internet search into a separate market, comparison shopping. Google abused its market dominance as a search engine to promote its own comparison shopping service in search results, whilst demoting those of rivals. This is not competition on the merits and is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival comparison shopping service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. In practice, this means consumers very rarely see rival comparison shopping services in Google's search results.

I wonder, the few who object, to which part do they object?

.

[Shaddows]

@engine
I have read the "factsheet"- it strongly lead me to think Google was being a bit dim in the first place, and outright stupid in not complying with the two Statements of Objections.

But the factsheet is essentially a charge sheet of misdemeanours, most of which are true (excepting the "demotion of competitors"), and the true ones deserve a financial punishment.

My problem is that the description of alleged wrongdoing does not actually correspond to the law as written. The only caveat is that the law is badly drafted, including the shockingly open provision:
"a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;"

So, sure, that catch-all clause says "whatever we want to pin on you" - but the context implies a contractual term (as in terms and conditions), as opposed to the discursive use such as "market conditions".

The law is worth reading, too.
[eftasurv.int...]

[Shaddows]

I wonder, the few who object, to which part do they object

I object to these bits:
whilst demoting those of rivals - not true, or unprovable
...and is illegal under EU antitrust rules - not true unless you reinterpret the rules (the first bit "not competition on the merits" is undoubtedly true)

Everything else is true. But not against the rules as written. AKA the law.

[FranticFish]

demoting those of rivals - not true, or unprovable

I have to say I disagree, I think this is open and shut. My view is that law may be worded in complex language - but good law and good judgements break down into simple concepts that should be easily understood.

Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong, but is this not what the EU are saying?

1) Google has an algorithm which is supposed to be impartial.
2) When people search for products, Google's algorithm will return manufacturers, retailers or price comparison services impartially according to the algorithm
3) Google runs its own price comparison service
4) Google shows its own price comparison service at the top of the page in a different and far more attractive format than all other results

QED surely?

[heisje]

QED surely?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum! - love it :)

[Shepherd]

1) Google has an algorithm which is supposed to be impartial.

Why? Who says it is supposed to be impartial? google's algo. google's website. google's SERPs is google's opinion. Does google claim anywhere that their algo is "impartial"?