EU hit Google with record fine of €2.4 billion over Google shopping service!

[A dot Ham]

Some courts, not all courts. Are you incapable of reading comprehension? The minimum standard for something to be a monopoly is 50% or more as set out by the FTC. And that is ONLY with the US. The EU court precedents have "market dominance" set as low as 37.9%.

And even if you were correct in any shape, way, or form, you STILL proved yourself wrong. You claimed before that a monopoly has to be sole owner of a market share, yet you just quoted "much higher percentage" much higher, is not 100%.

I never said anything about 100% ownership/market share... find it... I'll wait.

[Dezerte]

Its a far reaching, loose application of said law, and anyone with half a thought that doesn't have a hard on for the EU can see that.

There is a clear agenda here, and it has nothing to do with whether or not google is/was breaking any anti-trust laws.

That be like trying to nail a pest control specialist for animal abuse.

Someone here seems to have a hard on for something, that is for sure.

[Deleted]

"Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power."

From the FTC.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/comp...zation-defined

You're not making a good case for a monopoly here... not that there was one to begin with.

Thank god that this is the EU, where US law is completely releva.....ow wait.

''Market shares are a useful first indication of the importance of each firm on the market in comparison to the others. The Commission's view is that the higher the market share, and the longer the period of time over which it is held, the more likely it is to be a preliminary indication of dominance. If a company has a market share of less than 40%, it is unlikely to be dominant.''

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html

Please remove your foot from your mouth, you look silly.

[A dot Ham]

No they cant, fines are regulated by law. Same laws you call blackmail cos your logic is warped and frankly infantile.

So if a shop owner sells flowers. And prominently displays flowers picked from his own garden, vs flowers he had imported from various EU countries, is he not subject to the same law?

[Dezerte]

google probably would have ceased any practice that was deemed inappropriate by EU standards if simply asked to.

But they didn't, the article linked in the OP mentions that Google was approached in 2015 about this issue.

[Deleted]

Facebook could be facing a fine for providing “incorrect” and “misleading information” during the European Commission’s review of its $19bn (£15.4bn) takeover of messaging service WhatsApp.

Brussels said Facebook “intentionally or negligently” submitted misleading information, breaching EU merger rules.

The world’s biggest social network faces fines of up to 1 per cent of annual sales or roughly $125m, according to Facebook's annual revenue in 2014.

Margrethe Vestager, the EU's competition chief, said companies must take their obligation to give the Commission accurate information during merger investigations seriously.

She said: "Our timely and effective review of mergers depends on the accuracy of the information provided by the companies involved. In this specific case, the Commission’s preliminary view is that Facebook gave us incorrect or misleading information during the investigation into its acquisition of WhatsApp. Facebook now has the opportunity to respond."

Facebook will have until January 31 to respond to the European Commission.


Hey look, here's one for Facebook.

Do you think the EU is pressing charges against Amazon?

Hey, here's another case of a major american company taking anti-consumer action (in this case straight-up lying to avoid EU merger rules) and getting investigated for it, geez lets take a look at what they all have in common?

They are all breaking the law you say? Yea, people who get punished often have that in common.

[Tyrianth]

Do you have a source on those numbers? They sound reasonable but if I google for the 37.9% nothing seems to come up.

I had the number slightly wrong. It's not 37.9, it's 39.7.

FTC:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/comp...zation-defined

Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

European Commission:

Doesn't actually use the world monopoly in their rulings, instead they use "market dominance"

The 39.7% comes from a precedent set in 2004(?) between British Airways and Virgin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ompetition_law

If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share[28] then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market

Non wiki source

In British Airways, the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's finding of a dominant position. The Court of First Instance held that a market share of 39.7% must be considered las large enough for a dominant position.

[A dot Ham]

Thank god that this is the EU, where US law is completely releva.....ow wait.

''Market shares are a useful first indication of the importance of each firm on the market in comparison to the others. The Commission's view is that the higher the market share, and the longer the period of time over which it is held, the more likely it is to be a preliminary indication of dominance. If a company has a market share of less than 40%, it is unlikely to be dominant.''

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html

Please remove your foot from your mouth, you look silly.

The poster used the FTC as a source. I merely used the source against him. Just like I will do to you now with the EC.

"The Commission also takes other factors into account in its assessment of dominance, including the ease with which other companies can enter the market – whether there are any barriers to this; the existence of countervailing buyer power; the overall size and strength of the company and its resources and the extent to which it is present at several levels of the supply chain (vertical integration)."

If you just kept reading (and I suspect you did but it doesn't support your fictional narrative) you would see that market share is not the only determining factor. You would have to demonstrate how exactly google maintains said monopoly and what exactly prevents competition from entering the market.

Here's a hint: Nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

But they didn't, the article linked in the OP mentions that Google was approached in 2015 about this issue.

Approached or strong armed. A discussion goes both ways... a demand does not. Once again if anyone was using a little common sense here instead of EU propaganda, you could/would see this is a far reaching, loose, and unfair application of the law.

[Tyrianth]

I never said anything about 100% ownership/market share... find it... I'll wait.

Very well.



Your definition of monopoly is highlighted. I'll give you a hint "only supplier of a particular commodity" is synonymous with "100% market share".

By the way, synonymous means "means the same, but sounds different".

[Deleted]

So if a shop owner sells flowers. And prominently displays flowers picked from his own garden, vs flowers he had imported from various EU countries, is he not subject to the same law?

No, because the flower shop doesn't have market dominance (40+% market share as I linked previously, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html).

Please stop making asinine comparisons when it has already previously been proven why those comparisons are wrong.

[A dot Ham]

Very well.



Your definition of monopoly is highlighted. I'll give you a hint "only supplier of a particular commodity" is synonymous with "100% market share".

By the way, synonymous means "means the same, but sounds different".

LOL hold up you mean the generic dictionary definition of monopoly that I CLEARLY copied and pasted from wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

LOL

Control of a commodity... means control over raw materials. What are the raw materials for a search engine? Go on... I'll wait. I can see its taking you second to catch up. I have no problem walking you through it though.

[Deleted]

The poster used the FTC as a source. I merely used the source against him. Just like I will do to you now with the EC.

"The Commission also takes other factors into account in its assessment of dominance, including the ease with which other companies can enter the market – whether there are any barriers to this; the existence of countervailing buyer power; the overall size and strength of the company and its resources and the extent to which it is present at several levels of the supply chain (vertical integration)."

If you just kept reading (and I suspect you did but it doesn't support your fictional narrative) you would see that market share is not the only determining factor. You would have to demonstrate how exactly google maintains said monopoly and what exactly prevents competition from entering the market.

Here's a hint: Nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Luckily for me, actual law agrees with me.

Yes the 40% is the minimum benchmark (which I linked because you claimed you needed to have 100% of the resources to be a monopoly). Obviously other factors come into play as well, though the higher the market share the less relevant those other factors become. During the decision it was shown that 90%! of all web searches in the EU are done by google and that their dominant position is sustained. (https://www.theguardian.com/business...n-fine-from-eu)

Thank you, come again

[Independent voter]

EU Official Says It's Time To Harm American Internet Companies Via Regulations... Hours Later Antitrust Charges Against Google Announced

from the as-expected dept
This has been expected for a few weeks now (or a few months, depending on how you look at it), but the EU is now officially getting ready to file antitrust charges against Google. The WSJ has the initial report with very few details:
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 Microsoft Corp. a decade ago.
This also happens to come out the very same day that the EU's digital commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, has announced that the EU should regulate American internet companies to provide a bigger opportunity for European companies:
The European Union should regulate Internet platforms in a way that allows a new generation of European operators to overtake the dominant U.S. players, the bloc’s digital czar said, in an unusually blunt assessment of the risks that U.S. Web giants are viewed as posing to the continent’s industrial heartland.

Speaking at a major industrial fair in Hannover, Germany, the EU’s digital commissioner, Günther Oettinger, said Europe’s online businesses were “dependent on a few non-EU players world-wide” because the region had “missed many opportunities” in the development of online platforms.

Mr. Oettinger spoke of the need to “replace today’s Web search engines, operating systems and social networks” without naming any companies.
Obviously, the details of the charges against Google matter quite a bit, but, as we've said in the past, it seems odd that technocrat regulators seem to think that they know how to better design a search engine or a social network than the companies who have actually been doing so. Furthermore, the idea that European companies are at some sort of inherent disadvantage to American startups seems disproved by the success of multiple European internet companies, including Spotify and Soundcloud. Those companies didn't succeed by having regulators kneecap their competitors, but by building a better product.

Again, the specifics here definitely matter quite a bit, but given just how "transparent" EU regulators have been lately about wanting to take down successful American internet companies solely because they're successful and American, there are serious questions about the real motives behind this particular antitrust move. And, even worse, they don't seem to realize how a misguided antitrust fight will come back around and harm European internet companies as well, limiting their ability to truly compete.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...nnounced.shtml

It's a way for EU politicians to get votes, also it helps the EU organization by giving it a favorable opinion with EU citizens who resent American companies.

[Tyrianth]

LOL hold up you mean the generic dictionary definition of monopoly that I CLEARLY copied and pasted from wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

LOL

Control of a commodity... means control over raw materials. What are the raw materials for a search engine? Go on... I'll wait. I can see its taking you second to catch up. I have no problem walking you through it though.

No control over a commodity means exactly that. A commodity is not limited to raw materials.

Dictionary definition 1.1

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commodity

"1.1 A useful or valuable thing."

A search engine is a useful or valuable thing.

But as I said in a early post, the legal definition is not the same as common parlance. So even if you were right in your definition of monopoly in common parlance you are still wrong about it in this conversation as this is about legal monopolies.

[A dot Ham]

No, because the flower shop doesn't have market dominance (40+% market share as I linked previously, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html).

Please stop making asinine comparisons when it has already previously been proven why those comparisons are wrong.

and as I've cited from the FTC and the EC those are not the only defining factors of a monopoly. I can't make you read it. But if you continue to cherry pick and ignore the argument in it's entirety we will most certainly be done and I'm pretty sure I'll have enough on you for trolling. But go on, say it again... maybe if you say it enough it will make it true.

- - - Updated - - -

No control over a commodity means exactly that. A commodity is not limited to raw materials.

Dictionary definition 1.1

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commodity

"1.1 A useful or valuable thing."

A search engine is a useful or valuable thing.

And google controls this commodity how? Consumer preference is not control.

[Tyrianth]

and as I've cited from the FTC and the EC those are not the only defining factors of a monopoly. I can't make you read it. But if you continue to cherry pick and ignore the argument in it's entirety we will most certainly be done and I'm pretty sure I'll have enough on you for trolling. But go on, say it again... maybe if you say it enough it will make it true.

- - - Updated - - -



And google controls this commodity how? Consumer preference is not control.

Fuuuuuuck you are thick.

But as I said in a early post, the legal definition is not the same as common parlance. So even if you were right in your definition of monopoly in common parlance you are still wrong about it in this conversation as this is about legal monopolies.

Consumer preference IS control.

[A dot Ham]

EU Official Says It's Time To Harm American Internet Companies Via Regulations... Hours Later Antitrust Charges Against Google Announced

from the as-expected dept
This has been expected for a few weeks now (or a few months, depending on how you look at it), but the EU is now officially getting ready to file antitrust charges against Google. The WSJ has the initial report with very few details:
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 Microsoft Corp. a decade ago.
This also happens to come out the very same day that the EU's digital commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, has announced that the EU should regulate American internet companies to provide a bigger opportunity for European companies:
The European Union should regulate Internet platforms in a way that allows a new generation of European operators to overtake the dominant U.S. players, the bloc’s digital czar said, in an unusually blunt assessment of the risks that U.S. Web giants are viewed as posing to the continent’s industrial heartland.

Speaking at a major industrial fair in Hannover, Germany, the EU’s digital commissioner, Günther Oettinger, said Europe’s online businesses were “dependent on a few non-EU players world-wide” because the region had “missed many opportunities” in the development of online platforms.

Mr. Oettinger spoke of the need to “replace today’s Web search engines, operating systems and social networks” without naming any companies.
Obviously, the details of the charges against Google matter quite a bit, but, as we've said in the past, it seems odd that technocrat regulators seem to think that they know how to better design a search engine or a social network than the companies who have actually been doing so. Furthermore, the idea that European companies are at some sort of inherent disadvantage to American startups seems disproved by the success of multiple European internet companies, including Spotify and Soundcloud. Those companies didn't succeed by having regulators kneecap their competitors, but by building a better product.

Again, the specifics here definitely matter quite a bit, but given just how "transparent" EU regulators have been lately about wanting to take down successful American internet companies solely because they're successful and American, there are serious questions about the real motives behind this particular antitrust move. And, even worse, they don't seem to realize how a misguided antitrust fight will come back around and harm European internet companies as well, limiting their ability to truly compete.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...nnounced.shtml

It's a way for EU politicians to get votes, also it helps the EU organization by giving it a favorable opinion with EU citizens who resent American companies.

I'm loving it... its a shame its largely going unnoticed. I suspect their erections for the EU are just blocking your posts from view.

[Tyrianth]

I'm loving it... its a shame its largely going unnoticed. I suspect their erections for the EU are just blocking your posts from view.

Nope, you just have a serious case of persecution complex. It's actually very pathetic. lol

[A dot Ham]

Fuuuuuuck you are thick.



Consumer preference IS control.

So because I prefer Coke over Pepsi if they suddenly have 70% market share through no fault of their own other than having a superior product they are a monopoly? aaaaaand I'm thick?

You have still failed to provide any iota of evidence that google is predatorily preventing entrance and competition in the market place. There is NOTHING preventing competition... NOTHING.

[Machismo]

Apparently you don't know what a free market actually is. It doesn't involve monopolies with a gravy train of money coming in from those monopolies so no one else can compete.

Google is not a monopoly, it has competitors. It just happens to offer a service in a way that people prefer.

And yes, I know exactly what a free market is.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't a massive restriction on the free market (which isn't ''free'' anywhere), it only prevents google from cross-promoting their services.

Obviously rules are more strict for monopolistic (or near-monopolistic) companies since their ability to disturb the regulated market is far bigger than that of a company which has a 1% market share.

Fining a company for more than $2 billion for advertising itself on its own site is a pretty big damn restriction of the free market.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have a monopoly on searches. You use your monopoly on searches to aggressively promote other services, quickly gaining a monopoly on everything. Then you own the internet and you have the world at the palm of your hand. You are bigger and more powerful than countries combined.

It's the kind of evil that makes James Bond go after you.

Google does not have a monopoly on searches.