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

[Bunchy]

The attitude of some of the American posters, according to which a whole continent should just take undies off and bow to their companies, is pissing me off.
Its as if they find logical that we should operate according to their interests and legislation. Are you guys high or what? Seriously, stfu and pay up and more importantly operate according to the EU laws.

The EU is not a global governement you skype. And free market captilism is the priority of the US. If you don't like it don't operate within OUR economy.

[Deleted]

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.

You know that I literally debunked your ''it isn't the only relevant thing'' above right?

Talk about cherry-picking.

Anyways the google definition doesn't matter in this case.

What is relevant is the concept of market dominance (and abuse thereof), which is what the aforementioned ruling is based on.

Actual lawyers disagree with you on the assessment that having a 90% market share which has existed over time and is unlikely to go away naturally doesn't constitute market dominance. In general, the source of that market dominance (be it a raw material or consumer preference) as well as the easy of access to the market are relevant things to keep in mind, but in this case the EC has decided that google is still market dominant. Unfortunately I am going to end this discussion here, because at this point it just comes down to you not accepting/understanding/personally disagreeing with that decision, which is your right. Having said that, I have a tendency to trust people with actual law degrees working for one of the most powerful institutions in the world over someone who is legally semi-literate on the internet when it comes to these matters.

[Machismo]

well that was the most obviously imaginable example and would be a bit to blatant to get away with. i imagine what they really did was a bit more subtle.

but, do you agree that searching for bing on google should return bing as the result? or do you think its fair for google to hide that result?

Personally, I don't care if they hide the result. If you don't like that they hide results, or you disagree with their algorithm, then use a different search engine.

[A dot Ham]

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

You have an issue of taking things personally as if any sort of criticism against the EU is an act of aggression against you personally. Reality check.

[Mehrunes]

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.

You do realize that what @hypermode quoted outright said the market share is only the first indication of dominant position? It clearly implies there are other factors at play, so I'm not sure how you pointing that there are other factors at play is supposed to be some kind of a revelation here, let alone something that'd dismiss their point.

Also, just because there are other factors EC looks at in establishing market dominance, it doesn't mean all have to be present. Each case is different. Also, generally, when the market share is above 50%, it usually is enough to establish market dominance just on the grounds of the market share, as per EU's legal practice on this matter.

Here's a hint: Nothing.

Yes, EU rested their case on nothing but hopes and dreams

[Machismo]

For example I want to buy a washing machine.

The cost to make said washing machine is 500 dollars.

Because of this, there will be a range of prices in shops from 600-1000 dollars.

As an internet-savy consumer, I go on the internet to find the shop that will sell it for 600.

I google the name of the washing machine and the top result is google shopping listing 5 websites that sell it for 750,700,650, 639 and 690 dollars.

I then go to the website that sells it for 639 and consider myself a smart customer.

However there was another website that sold it for 600, which wasn't listed in google shopping, so I lost 39 dollars.

There is also another price-comparison website called <insert random name> that does a better job and actually does list the 600 dollar website.

In a normal market scenario where the best product wins, the other price-comparison website would win out and google pricing would die out because they don't provide a good service.

However in this case google pricing would still get a lot of customers because they are always at the top of the google search results and thus getting a lot of customers from there, even though they might be providing a worse service, thus damaging the market that the EC is trying to protect.

Do you understand the example or did I miss a step anywhere?

If you only go to one site to look for deals, you aren't really doing your due diligence, are you? Google exists, because people are lazy. Now they want to punish Google, for people being lazy.

[Mehrunes]

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.

I guess when one's argument rests on deliberate misrepresentation of words, they may start to think they actually have a point. Anyway, in the real world, commodity in this context refers to, you know, goods and services. Whatever could be the service provided by a search engine.

[Machismo]

allowing vertical and horizontal integration inhibits the free market.

Restricting it limits the free markets. If you don't like what Google has to offer, use a different site. It really is that simple. Vertical integration is an efficient way to do business. Horizontal integration is a solid way for businesses to grow.

[Tyrianth]

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 don't have to intentionally become a monopoly to be considered a fucking monopoly. If coke controls 70% of the pop market share, then coke has a monopoly whether they like it or not. If you can't understand that very simple logic, then yes you are beyond 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.

Is google unfairly prioritizing their own Google Shopping service? Are they charging their Google Shopping subsidiary the same rates as they would a third party company for their sponsored links? If they are not charging their subsidiaries the same rate they are giving themselves an unfair advantage. Whether they like it or not, whether they intended for it to happen or not, they are a monopoly. They have market dominance. And with that comes anti-competition laws and regulations which the EC has found that they have broken have a 2 year investigation.

If they haven't broken any anti-competition laws then they can fight it in court.

[ItsRainingMetal]

The EU is not a global governement you skype. And free market captilism is the priority of the US. If you don't like it don't operate within OUR economy.

No it's not and neither is the US, EU lawmakers dont give a rats ass, what is and isn't a priority in the US.

When a company is doing business in the EU, it must obviously comply with the rules and regulations of the EU.
Just like companies must comply with US rules and regulations when operating in the US.

This is really not a hard concept to grasp.

[Machismo]

To quote the relevant law text:

''any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it (...) that is incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions.''

You see the part where it says ''dominant position''?

Obviously a company with a massive market share like google has a lot more potential to influence the market than a random search engine with a 1% market share, because of this the aforementioned legislation only applies to the big companies.

- - - Updated - - -



Or google should stop breaking the law?

And that shows there is a double standard. That's a shame.

[A dot Ham]

You know that I literally debunked your ''it isn't the only relevant thing'' above right?

Talk about cherry-picking.

Anyways the google definition doesn't matter in this case.

What is relevant is the concept of market dominance (and abuse thereof), which is what the aforementioned ruling is based on.

Actual lawyers disagree with you on the assessment that having a 90% market share which has existed over time and is unlikely to go away naturally doesn't constitute market dominance. In general, the source of that market dominance (be it a raw material or consumer preference) as well as the easy of access to the market are relevant things to keep in mind, but in this case the EC has decided that google is still market dominant. Unfortunately I am going to end this discussion here, because at this point it just comes down to you not accepting/understanding/personally disagreeing with that decision, which is your right. Having said that, I have a tendency to trust people with actual law degrees working for one of the most powerful institutions in the world over someone who is legally semi-literate on the internet when it comes to these matters.

Still waiting to see how google manages to prevent entry and competition in the market... waiting... waiting...

[Deleted]

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 - - -



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 - - -



Google does not have a monopoly on searches.

Google has ''market dominance'' which is the relevant legal term (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html) as well as a 90% market share in internet searches in Europe. It doesn't have a full-blown monopoly but that is irrelevant in the legal matter at hand.

Advertising yourself on your own website really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, especially when your website is supposed to display objective information based on an algorithm and not meant to advertise for yourself.

[Mehrunes]

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.

Ah, I wondered when in your random posting of meaningless shit you'd link this story (about which you made a complete whine thread in the past, in which you made a fool out of yourself, flailing about US being oppressed and showing that you don't understand anything the story is about and where even Orlong had more of a clue on the topic). And yeah, EU filing charges against Google after other venues failed is totes because of resentment towards America. Also combined with horseshit conspiracy theory about election motives, which, given how the guy in question was a fucking commissioner, showcases you don't have even a sliver of clue about how EU works and what the fuck you're bullshitting about.

[Tyrianth]

Still waiting to see how google manages to prevent entry and competition in the market... waiting... waiting...

They aren't being fined for preventing entry. They are being fined for anti-competitive practices by favouring themselves or third party companies.

[Deleted]

If you only go to one site to look for deals, you aren't really doing your due diligence, are you? Google exists, because people are lazy. Now they want to punish Google, for people being lazy.

If you have the option to click the top result on google or the third result, which one will you click?

If you don't say top result you are simply lying.

Anyways, let me have the facts do the talking:

The placement of Google’s product well ahead of its rivals was pivotal to the shopping service’s success as, even on a desktop, the 10 highest-ranking generic search results on page one generally receive approximately 95% of all clicks on generic search results. The top result receives about 35% of all the clicks and the trend is exaggerated further for searches on mobile phones. (https://www.theguardian.com/business...n-fine-from-eu).

[Mehrunes]

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.

You obviously don't know how EU antitrust law works. Don't try to make yourself an authority on the topic.

[stabetha]

Of course it would take a bit of time for the other companies to fully catch up, but he's acting like it'd be the end of the world for Europe's technology sector if we lost google which simply isn't the case at all. Look at how quickly technology changes, you only have to look at how many search engines have been and gone simply because they DIDN'T have a market share with which to get the money needed for development.

There are countless options NOW for the nonsense 'stuff we'd miss' that he spouted, with a little extra publicity there is no reason why they wouldn't take up the mantle from a company that would no longer exist to be an opponent.

They are like bacteria, google is the big boy at the moment, but when they get sprayed that 0.1% of bacteria that survives WILL take over.

if there are other options then that would mean there is no monopoly.

[Mehrunes]

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

I wonder who'd win in a competition on this between them and Hubcap.

[Tyrianth]

Google has ''market dominance'' which is the relevant legal term (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html) as well as a 90% market share in internet searches in Europe. It doesn't have a full-blown monopoly but that is irrelevant in the legal matter at hand.

Advertising yourself on your own website really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, especially when your website is supposed to display objective information based on an algorithm and not meant to advertise for yourself.

Yup when I worked for a large construction company, the vast majority of my job was writing cheques to different departments in the company. Why? So we wouldn't be charged with anti-competition laws by favouring ourselves over the small mom and pop stores. We had to bill ourselves the same price we would anyone else.

Google probably wouldn't be in this mess if the charged Google Shopping for the sponsored links.