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

[Deleted]

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.

Good lord. Please go read up on the wiki page of anti-trust law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._antitrust_law) before making such stupid statements again.

[Tyrianth]

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

Someone else who doesn't know the legal definition of monopoly.

[Deleted]

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

As far as I know, google isn't actively preventing entry (or competition) in the search engine market. Having said that, please link the relevant passage where it says that a lack of ability to enter the market is a requirement for a dominant position (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html), hint: you can't because it isn't. It is one of the relevant factors but it isn't a necessary one, in fact the only necessary one is the 40+% market share, which I think we both agree on is present.

[Machismo]

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.

And this is a clear case of a double standard. Other companies aren't being punished for the same actions.

[A dot Ham]

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.

No... it isn't BY definition, that you and other have provided. Market share is NOT the only determining factor. They do not control the commodity, therefore they do not control the market. They simply provide a superior service. There is nothing stopping competition in the market.

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.

A company prioritizing their own interests, over interests of other companies is a monopoly... that is what you are saying.

So again going back to my florist shop analogy. I have a garden and I prominently display my flowers over flowers I have imported I am breaking law.

So the correct way to do business according to you and the EC is I should equally display all flowers both mine and others and give no preference to my own product? Because I am in the business of making other people money, not myself.

[dvaz]

Damn first their #morethanarefugee campaign not getting the expected reaction in EU and now this.

[Tyrianth]

And this is a clear case of a double standard. Other companies aren't being punished for the same actions.

Other companies don't have market dominance. If they do, they are punished for the same actions.

[Deleted]

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

I agree that there isn't a monopoly, however that isn't a requirement to have ''market dominance'', google was fined for abuse of market dominance. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html

[Machismo]

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).

I happen to click on multiple results every time I use Google. If you don't, that's a problem, and it's on you.

Google is literally advertising itself on its website, I see no problem with that.

[A dot Ham]

As far as I know, google isn't actively preventing entry (or competition) in the search engine market. Having said that, please link the relevant passage where it says that a lack of ability to enter the market is a requirement for a dominant position (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html), hint: you can't because it isn't. It is one of the relevant factors but it isn't a necessary one, in fact the only necessary one is the 40+% market share, which I think we both agree on is present.

"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)."

Its literally the next paragraph down from the shit you are regurgitating.

[Mehrunes]

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.

Having competitors doesn't prevent a company from having a monopoly position under modern antitrust laws. And contrary to your previous brilliant post about US exceptionalism, US thresholds of market share are very similar to EU ones. So given how you're outright ignorant of antitrust laws in both EU and US, I'll jump on @Zelk's comment of "beyond parody" as being applicable here.

[Deleted]

The European Commission has been investigating Google Shopping since late 2010.
The probe was spurred on by complaints from Microsoft, among others.

The EU simply followed their own regulations, but this part is funny. Microsoft got hit with the antitrust hammer the last decade.

[Deleted]

No... it isn't BY definition, that you and other have provided. Market share is NOT the only determining factor. They do not control the commodity, therefore they do not control the market. They simply provide a superior service. There is nothing stopping competition in the market.



A company prioritizing their own interests, over interests of other companies is a monopoly... that is what you are saying.

So again going back to my florist shop analogy. I have a garden and I prominently display my flowers over flowers I have imported I am breaking law.

So the correct way to do business according to you and the EC is I should equally display all flowers both mine and others and give no preference to my own product? Because I am in the business of making other people money, not myself.

Again, your asinine flower shop comparison is irrelevant because the flower shop doesn't have market dominance, google does.

[Tyrianth]

No... it isn't BY definition, that you and other have provided. Market share is NOT the only determining factor. They do not control the commodity, therefore they do not control the market. They simply provide a superior service. There is nothing stopping competition in the market.

You keep saying that but you are still wrong. By definition they have market dominance.

A company prioritizing their own interests, over interests of other companies is a monopoly... that is what you are saying.

So again going back to my florist shop analogy. I have a garden and I prominently display my flowers over flowers I have imported I am breaking law.

So the correct way to do business according to you and the EC is I should equally display all flowers both mine and others and give no preference to my own product? Because I am in the business of making other people money, not myself.

A company with market dominance that is giving themselves an unfair advantage over other companies is smart business practice I agree with that. It also goes against anti-competition laws in pretty much every western country.

Flower shop analogy really outlines your understanding of the subject, i.e. zero understanding.

[Machismo]

Good lord. Please go read up on the wiki page of anti-trust law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._antitrust_law) before making such stupid statements again.

I have a degree in economics...

I also happen to be a strong supporter of the free market. Fining a company billions of dollars for doing the exact same thing that other companies can get away with is en example of a double standard. It's an inconsistent application of logic, and is damn punitive.

- - - Updated - - -

Having competitors doesn't prevent a company from having a monopoly position under modern antitrust laws. And contrary to your previous brilliant post about US exceptionalism, US thresholds of market share are very similar to EU ones. So given how you're outright ignorant of antitrust laws in both EU and US, I'll jump on @Zelk's comment of "beyond parody" as being applicable here.

I'm not ignorant of the laws, I simply disagree with them, and how they are applied.

I'm not sure where you have seen me unironically preaching American exceptionalism. If you can find it, please point it out. At best, you will find my assertion that the United States has more freedom of speech than most EU countries. That last point can be demonstrated to be objectively true for most EU countries.

[Deleted]

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.

No, it limits companies, that's not the same thing.

[Deleted]

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).

Does this say ''requirement'' to you?

Like I said before, it is a relevant factor, but it isn't a mandatory factor, like the minimum 40% market share is. Do you see the difference between those 2 kinds of things?

[Machismo]

No, it limits companies, that's not the same thing.

It is limiting companies, which limits the marketplace as a whole.

[A dot Ham]

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).

Are people in the EU not aware of this?

I don't know anyone in America that uses google that doesn't know that the first several returns are paid slots. If you know that, and this isn't kept from the public. What is the issue?

Now if you return the information and you claim it is the top search result, best price, etc... and it isn't well you are deceiving the consumer. Which I don't know about EU law... but that is something else entirely. In America we'd call that false advertising... which isn't what the EU has brought against google.

[Tyrianth]

I hope google fights this and they lose horribly in court. The tears of Americans looking to suckle the teat of Corporation will be fantastic.