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

[Deleted]

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 - - -



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.

Good lord, if I were you I would sue whichever university sold you your ''degree in economics'', since they obviously arn't helping you do anything but look stupid on the internet.

Obviously if you have a dominant position your actions have a much larger impact than a small mom-and-pop shop, hence anti-competitive behaviour from the mom-and-pop shop mattering a lot less when it comes to disturbing the markets than the anti-competitive behaviour of a company that makes 90 trillion dollars annually.

[A dot Ham]

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?

Not sure where it is saying 40% is a "requirement" either. If you're looking for key action words you just put yourself in a box that doesn't support your "truth" either.

[Deleted]

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.

We are not talking about the paid slots here though, please try again.

[Machismo]

Good lord, if I were you I would sue whichever university sold you your ''degree in economics'', since they obviously arn't helping you do anything but look stupid on the internet.

Obviously if you have a dominant position your actions have a much larger impact than a small mom-and-pop shop, hence anti-competitive behaviour from the mom-and-pop shop mattering a lot less when it comes to disturbing the markets than the anti-competitive behaviour of a company that makes 90 trillion dollars annually.

Don't worry about me, I went to a great university. I also have a well-paying job, so I'm doing just fine.

You are continuing to try and justify a double standard, but I'm not going to support such a thing. It's literally punishing a company for being large and successful. It's not their actions, because they are not going after everyone doing the exact same thing. If you are going to push restrictions on the free markets, the least you can do is be consistent about it.

[Deleted]

Not sure where it is saying 40% is a "requirement" either. If you're looking for key action words you just put yourself in a box that doesn't support your "truth" either.

I am not looking for the word requirement, sorry for putting it in brackets.

''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.''

Still doesn't mean im wrong.

Please point out to the part of the article where it says that if a market has free entry it is unlikely to be dominant.

[ItsRainingMetal]

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.

It would be pretty hilarious if the court decides to increase the fine.

[Mehrunes]

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

Because other companies actions don't have the same result on the market. Double standard indeed.

[Deleted]

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.

yeah the EU commissioners are not elected by voters, they are chosen by the states and approved by the parliament, and are virtually all of them retired politicians.

[Acidbaron]

It would be pretty hilarious if the court decides to increase the fine.

The intend will be the create time to go back to talking and adjustments in Europe so they comply to the rules. Eventually it will be settled by paying a much smaller fine and to cover the legal costs.

[Deleted]

Don't worry about me, I went to a great university. I also have a well-paying job, so I'm doing just fine.

You are continuing to try and justify a double standard, but I'm not going to support such a thing. It's literally punishing a company for being large and successful. It's not their actions, because they are not going after everyone doing the exact same thing. If you are going to push restrictions on the free markets, the least you can do is be consistent about it.

Hmm, I doubt that is true but that is besides the point.

While the actions are the part that they are being judged on, the consequences are what matters.

Say this hypothetical scenario where 2 people punch someone in the face, one of them is an mma-fighter who punches someone so hard the person ends up in a coma, the other person is you who punches someone in a way that gives them a bruise on their face.

As you can see, the action is the same but because the first person is far more powerful, their actions have much more impact and therefore they should be punished more strict.

[Machismo]

Because other companies actions don't have the same result on the market. Double standard indeed.

Then the punishment is not for the action, but for being a large company.

[Mehrunes]

"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.

And the fact they take them into account doesn't mean that each and every one of them has to be present or there is no dominant position. Do you even know how language works? Jesus Christ...

And the higher the market share, the less the other factors matter. In legal practice of EU, market share is enough to establish market dominance alone if it's already above 50%, Google's market share was 90%. Do try to connect the dots here.

[Machismo]

Hmm, I doubt that is true but that is besides the point.

While the actions are the part that they are being judged on, the consequences are what matters.

Say this hypothetical scenario where 2 people punch someone in the face, one of them is an mma-fighter who punches someone so hard the person ends up in a coma, the other person is you who punches someone in a way that gives them a bruise on their face.

As you can see, the action is the same but because the first person is far more powerful, their actions have much more impact and therefore they should be punished more strict.

They are not being judged by their actions, because as you have pointed out, others do the same thing without recourse. They are being punished, because they are larger. That's where the inconsistency comes into play. That's the double standard. Their business practices are not the problem, their size is the problem.

[Deleted]

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

No, companies themselves are an inhibition of the free market.

[Deleted]

And the fact they take them into account doesn't mean that each and every one of them has to be present or there is no dominant position. Do you even know how language works? Jesus Christ...

And the higher the market share, the less the other factors matter. In legal practice of EU, market share is enough to establish market dominance alone if it's already above 50%, Google's market share was 90%. Do try to connect the dots here.

Do you have a citation on that 50%?

[Machismo]

No, companies themselves are an inhibition of the free market.

Not really, only if they attempt to forcefully limit competition. That's what the government does. The last time I checked, Google was not forcing anything.

[A dot Ham]

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.

The fact that you think this is a EU vs America thing is hilarious, as if we Americans have any stake or skin in the game when it comes to googles presence in Europe.

The difference here is we are afforded the luxury of a non-bias opinion, whereas if you were to lose said argument/legal battle you would have to concede that the EU was in fact over stepping its boundaries and quite obviously and unjustly picking on a foreign company just because they are... foreign.

If the EU has a better product that is being stifled because of google... then fuck google. Lets have it.

You think that anyone here has loyalty to google as a company because they are American? LOL. If you have a superior product, most consumers are ready and willing to make a jump.

If you think Americans are prideful over American products I'd like you to take a look at Ford. Nobody has any problem leaving another company in the dust that refuses to embrace changing times.

You guys aren't even remotely open to the possibility that the EU is just on a witch hunt. Today the target is foreign, in the future though (if you allow it) that target may be domestic. Perhaps then you will the ridiculousness and the lack of justice being perpetrated.

[Deleted]

They are not being judged by their actions, because as you have pointed out, others do the same thing without recourse. They are being punished, because they are larger. That's where the inconsistency comes into play. That's the double standard. Their business practices are not the problem, their size is the problem.

Their size isn't the problem, the impact of their actions is the problem, did you even read my analogy?

[Mehrunes]

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.

Yeah, companies without a dominant position sure get away with abusing their nonexistent dominant position all the time This thread makes me lose faith in Americans. What little of it remained after the elections.

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

You portrayed US as having more free markets on a topic about anti-trust laws, in later post concentrating on monopolies. When anti-trust laws are similar between US and EU. You also tried to prove that Google isn't a monopoly because it has competitors...

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.

In the previous post from what I have quoted? Just like I said? Did I misspell something?

[A dot Ham]

We are not talking about the paid slots here though, please try again.

I'm not referring to ads either. It is a well known fact that the more you pay... the higher on the list you are.