Going to pre-empt the comments that always pop up in these topics saying "Google/Meta/Apple will just leave the EU at this rate": Google still has around $20 billion yearly reasons to remain active in the EU. Talking Europe yearly net profit here, post-fine. No, they're not going to say "screw this fine, you can take your $20 billion per year, we're leaving!". The second that happens, shareholders will have Sundar's access revoked within the hour.
There is a number of countries where Google has to deal with large levels of protectionist barriers (not the EU, these fines aren't that) and they still operate there. Korea is just one example. Because there's still a lot of money to be made. China isn't a counterexample: Google stopped operating search in China because at that point there was not a lot of money to be made for them in search there.
bee_rider · 2h ago
I love that you got one response calling it extortion, and another worrying that it might not have recovered all the money from the abusive practices.
The EU is threading the needle deftly here, I guess.
nonethewiser · 2h ago
Im not necessarily saying its extortion. Im saying his observation is why the EU could extort Google for a lot more than $3B. My wording was unclear so I tried editing my original comment but apparently it was removed.
Why forfeit $20B in revenue in exchange for NOT having to pay $3B? I think that's an astute observation by the original commenter.
bee_rider · 1h ago
Sorry for the incorrect read I guess. Hopefully it will be restored and I’ll get a chance to re-read it (fwiw I wish it hadn’t been flagged).
nonethewiser · 1h ago
I think I've summarized it well enough. I would copy/paste it for clarity but I will avoid that, as I'm not trying to give the impression of evading content moderation.
EDIT: FWIW I think your observation that the EU is threading a needle stands. It's a controversial topic that people are very passionate about.
hopelite · 1h ago
Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
I am not sure why but otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be incapable of internalizing that any cost, expense, or fine levied against any corporate entity will always, with 100% (not any other percentage) be rolled into prices. The minor headache of it lowering returns will also be offset and will not really make a difference to any meaningful degree. Most likely Google, just like other corporations that are exposed to this kind of risk, will have set aside a "war chest" they have been building up over prior years, which further would defray any real impact.
Then of course there is the fact that these fines are rarely ever the actual amount that will be paid in the end, and most of the time it can be distributed over time.
What people should really take away from this is that in the end it really is kind of an extortion racket by the EU, but not of Google, but rather of the advertising companies the end consumers who end up paying from he higher priced ads through product prices, and possibly the general Google customer base.
This would really only be an issue that materially impacted Google if there were some kind of real competition in the space, which there is not really. What the EU could possibly do that would have a notable impact is setting industry standards to, e.g., a universal ad format that is ad broker agnostic, e.g., your app, site, service, etc could just serve up ads from all kinds of places, a kind of free market of ads not dominated by Google.
But even with that, with Google's advancement in AI generated content, they will likely also dominate the ad generation market soon.
The oddest thing is that the EU and Europe in general has all but floundered in many ways regarding the generation of a competitive technology industry. But that's a whole different topic.
wkat4242 · 24m ago
> Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
That will make Google less competitive and allow more players on the market, breaking their monopoly. Not a bad outcome and probably exactly the point of these fines.
mitthrowaway2 · 1h ago
This is why the fines should be high enough that a competitor who doesn't engage in abusive practices, and doesn't have fines levied against them, can out-compete the ones that do. Then competitive pressure would prevent companies from just treating fines as a cost of doing business and passing it on to their customers.
Of course, in a market with this degree of concentrated market power, those fines would have to be very very high indeed...
layer8 · 47m ago
Willful continued violation of the law will result in increasingly steep fines, and likely ulterior measures. It’s not something that Google can just price in.
nonethewiser · 42m ago
The idea is pricing in the lost value. So whether its fines or they stand up compliance and see revenue loss from operational changes, that's what they could offset with new pricing.
jacquesm · 26m ago
There is no 'lost value'. There is illegal income.
BizarroLand · 39m ago
I disagree only because I would be truly shocked if they do not figure out how to get as close to the line as is profitable without crossing over and recover those fines in the future with increased pricing.
beberlei · 37m ago
yes, lets charge the EU customers 10% more for the price of viewing an ad.
overfeed · 50m ago
> Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
Google applying tariffs to itself in Europe might be something the EC may a) investigate and fine Google for ripping off Europeans, and/or b) approve of; they previously considered a big-tech tax to improve competition in Europe. Google would be doing them a favor, and Trump won't send them a nastygram this time around.
nonethewiser · 49m ago
Why would you classify this as a tariff?
>build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
lucketone · 22m ago
Tariff’s usual goal is to increase the price to reduce competitiveness.
My guess is that exactly this similarity coupled with a pinch of humour, was what caused op to classify it as such.
ivanjermakov · 1h ago
I think Google leaving EU will result in more good than harm by shaping a better landscape for innovation and competition.
Xenoamorphous · 22m ago
As an European, I wish you were right, but I’m afraid you aren’t.
The EU would use public funding to build some sort of Google alternative and it would take ages, would be mediocre and most money would go to waste. Instead of incentivising entrepreneurship, which is what they probably should do.
We live very well in the EU. We don’t have to have millions in savings in order to retire. Strong worker protection. Plenty of time off. Low crime rates. Most people fantasise with becoming rich, but as in, “I had a rich aunt that I didn’t even meet in my life and I was the sole heir” or “I won the lottery”, not as in “I grinded for the best 10 years of my life working 100 hours per week before I sold my company” that seems more prevalent in the US. Ordinary people here are super happy if they can buy a small place to live (not a humongous house) even if it takes 25 years to pay it in full, then finish work at 5 and take their kids to the park and have dinner at some restaurant on Saturday.
OTOH: I think the current US administration is the best think that could happen to the EU, a big wake up call. Suddenly there’s money to invest in Defense and that kind of thing.
Also, hopefully LLMs will diminish Google’s importance, and as long as there’s competitive models not from the US (Mistral, DeepSeek) we might be fine. But Google holds all the cards (data). With stuff like the Harvard animosity they might even stop attracting all the foreign talent.
Apple? There’s Samsung for phones at least. Amazon? They’ve become a Temu/Aliexpress. Facebook… huge win if they stopped doing business in Europe. MS? This is the year of Linux in desktop?
The Cloud is one of those things where the EU could build something competitive/alternative just with public funding. All running on Linux, of course.
holoduke · 5m ago
Isn't Europe in a desperate weak position? To me it's on the edge of collapsing. France needs a bail soon. Germany in a steep decline. A war they probably gonna lose. Dozens of national governments in shattered pieces. Housing and energy crisis. Overregulation on many topics holding countries locked.
Xenoamorphous · 4m ago
Wish you could know what they (media) tell us about the US over here…
rs186 · 30m ago
> Google stopped operating search in China because at that point there was not a lot of money to be made for them in search there.
I agree with everything you’ve said, but just would also point out that in addition to the fine, it is unclear how changing its practices is going to decrease existing (ill gotten) ad revenues going forward. Presumably these changes will hurt revenue or google would already be following them.
outside2344 · 1h ago
I think it is more likely that Trump point blank tells them they aren't allowed to pay this and that the EU isn't allowed to fine them any longer.
ajsnigrutin · 59m ago
And ursula will brag how she got a deal with trump, where google doesn't get fined. ...like with the tarrifs, where US got everything they wanted and EU got nothing.
29athrowaway · 1h ago
It is not only revenue, it is mining data, feeding it into Gemini and selling it back to people in the form of ML models.
immibis · 1h ago
If you can prove Google did this, the GDPR fines will make them bankrupt. Corporations are rightfully terrified of breaking GDPR.
troupo · 1h ago
GDPR hasn't been really enforced. I don't think anyone is scared of GDPR anymore.
mdhb · 2m ago
You seem to pop up on threads on a daily basis just making up shit and pretending it’s a fact. I guess it really matches the bio you wrote here in your profile but JFC… why..
jacquesm · 25m ago
Have I got news for you...
I'm aware of a single record case that cost the perp 350K. You really don't want to get zapped with the maximum fines based on wilful transgressions on large numbers of people.
The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation.
The EU has 450M (+80M for UK & similar non-eu countries that are likely to follow the EU on such regulations) population to the US' 350M.
The moment the likes of Google, or Meta, or Microsoft, or whomever else leave the EU, they immediately create a market gap. A market gap that will then in short order be filled with a European company that, because of the population sizes, has a notable comparative advantage to the US tech company.
+ As much as HN's readership loathes to admit it, regulations like this are "Good, Actually". Google's monopolist practices are bad for both advertisers and services showing ads. Any would-be competitor that arises from Google leaving the market would, by virtue of being forced by law to not be so shitty, be the better option.
(And yes, this does also apply to pretty much all of the other big tech regulations as well.)
Like, c'mon. "Monopolies bad" is capitalism 101. Even the US' regulators thought Google was going too far.
delusional · 1h ago
> The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation.
My hot take is that if they want to leave, then they can fuck right off. If you think your desires, profits, or business practices extend beyond democracy, then I don't need your business. Private enterprise should support and assist democracy, not the other way around (there's obviously some leeway there, but by and large).
linotype · 1h ago
Nm
immibis · 1h ago
More importantly though, why haven't they?
A lot of it is a because the US brands are more recognizable and cheaper (due to dumping) and grow faster (due to the USA's VC glut).
IIRC a company like AirBNB was started in Europe, and was slowly growing, and couldn't get investment because "who would want this?" and then AirBNB was created, and then arrived in Europe, and they still couldn't get investment because "who wants a ripoff clone of AirBNB?"
nonethewiser · 1h ago
What do you mean by "dumping?" It sounds like you're just talking about VC.
PhantomHour · 39m ago
"Dumping" in the context of international trade; Predatory pricing.
The standard model for tech firms has been to run at enormous losses to push competition into bankruptcy or steal their users through subsidized service.
No European social media company could compete with e.g. Twitter, running at a loss for TWELVE years.
In more recent years, it's things like Uber. Subsidizing ride costs to crush existing taxi services & European taxi startups.
This is all, ostensibly, illegal under international law. You can't do it for cars or commodity goods. It's just not been enforced on the tech industry.
Workaccount2 · 1h ago
The EU has been chronically unable to fill the gaps in their economy. If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas. There are no major tech companies in Europe, which is so insane it's comical. Let that sink in...a continent full of intelligent tech workers has never been able to get a major tech company off the ground.
Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either....
PhantomHour · 46m ago
> There are no major tech companies in Europe, which is so insane it's comical. Let that sink in...a continent full of intelligent tech workers has never been able to get a major tech company off the ground.
This is plainly untrue if you're talking about tech beyond the mag-7 sized supergiants.
> Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either....
And yet it is the tech giants in the US, oh so praised for their size, that are the "weeds" in many regards.
What good is Google when it's reliant on an advertising monopoly itself built entirely on monopolistic and fraudulent exploitation of the rest of the economy.
What good is Amazon when it's reliant on crushing all other retail and local manufacturing?
CamperBob2 · 22m ago
What good is Amazon when it's reliant on crushing all other retail and local manufacturing?
I give them money, and in return I get stuff that "all other retail" failed to provide.
That's good.
FirmwareBurner · 1h ago
>The EU has been chronically unable to fill the gaps in their economy.
Wait, weren't Merkel's "Fachkräfte" supposed to boost the EU economy to the moon creating tones of innovative companies? /s
>If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas.
Irony is you're being downvoted into oblivion for being 100% correct, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable so you have to be buried in downvotes because nobody can or wants to address this issue.
croes · 1h ago
Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash.
And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil.
>Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash.
Really? How many of the illegal boat immigrants work in the German healthcare sector? Because last time I checked they were mostly EU workers who got their job before crossing the border. Actual doctors and nurses don't need to cross borders illegally to get a job. I wasn't talking about skilled, LEGAL immigrants like doctors and nurses, I was talking about the other „Fachkräfte“ that tend to make the news.
>And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil.
Maybe he meant in the tech sector. Because I can't take the LVMH sweatshop seriously even if they're making a lot of money. And the other companies on the list, FANG are worth more than all of them combined. I think even Nvidia is worth more than all of them.
ben0x539 · 25m ago
You know that "Fachkräfte" doesn't mean immigrants, right?
pendenthistory · 2h ago
No, they will not leave the EU because the EU is not reading the room right now. You think Trump will do nothing to protect FAANG? To be honest, despite being European, I'm surprised the US has let itself be pushed around for so long. I don't say I agree with it, it's just realpolitik.
bee_rider · 1h ago
It is hard to understand what Trump will do… it is hard to talk about this without going on some US politics tangent, which I think is not appreciated on this site. But he isn’t particularly affiliated with FAANG really. He has some startup guys in his orbit, but they aren’t FAANG.
And he’s, uh… very motivated by what others have to offer him… so FAANG clearly has some leverage there, but I don’t think it is necessarily a sure thing they’ll work something out.
croes · 1h ago
Or they are.
How about a little tariff reduction to get rid of this fine for Google.
That’s how Trump makes his deals.
BTW where is the US pushed around? Reversed victim and offender?
victorbjorklund · 1h ago
What is he going to do? Nuke Paris?
No comments yet
vkou · 1h ago
Odds aren't terrible that Trump will have a fatal stroke before his term is up, the EU will outlive him, and can't and shouldn't tie its sovereign domestic policy and enforcement to cross-Atlantic chain-yanking that changes direction from week to week.
No matter what anyone does, he just moves the goal posts. Let him keep his ball.
dmbche · 1h ago
You never know they might have kept Cheney's heart surgeon somewhere to keep patching him up
impossiblefork · 2h ago
I don't think this decision is wrong, I'm from the EU, and I think companies like Google have too much power anyway, but I don't like the ability of the commission to enforce things.
Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians.
I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system. It should be done by an impartial regular, or prosecutor or a court. This kind of system opens up the commission to political blackmail and threats from powerful states, it opens up for corruption, it opens up for uneven enforcement, and there's just no reason to have the system this way.
You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.
looperhacks · 59m ago
I have my issues with how legislation is set up in the EU, but it's not like the commission can just make its own laws. The commission can only submit proposals, which then have to be approved (or changed) by the council and parliament. (In fact, the commission is the only party that can submit proposals, something that is very weird to me) As such, the commission is not part of the legislative branch, but the executive. The main job of the executive is to enforce the law, e.g. with fines.
In fact, this seems to be pretty similar to Sweden, quoting from [1]:
> Most state administrative authorities (statliga förvaltningsmyndigheter), as opposed to local authorities (kommuner), sorts under the Government, including the Armed Forces, Coast Guard, Customs Service and the police.
It appears that the swedish government can also initiate legislation, just like the commission (although the Riksdag can initiate on their own, something the European parliament cannot).
Also, fwiw: The fines can also be adjusted or cancelled by the court of Justice of the EU
impossiblefork · 45m ago
My problem is actually that they have enforcement and rulemaking power.
There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.
nonethewiser · 1h ago
Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU?
My understanding is Sweden's "SEC" (in US terms) is called Finansinspektionen.
Wouldnt this EU commission be like the Finansinspektionen issuing a fine or revoking a license if a bank didnt comply with regulations? My understanding is the Finansinspektionen can do this sort of thing but has to go to the court for larger actions.
Perhaps the EU commission has a bit more leeway?
sam_lowry_ · 1h ago
> Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU?
The European Commission is both the executive and legal branch. They propose the legislation that the European Parliament can only approve or reject. On the other hand, the European Patliament can not propose anything at all.
layer8 · 36m ago
That’s not quite accurate. There is an extended process in which the Parliament and the Council can give input and propose and discuss changes to the Commission’s proposal, to work out a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_pro...
sam_lowry_ · 2m ago
You are even less accurate. The Council is not an independent body. It represents the member states directly.
The Commission is elected by member states and thus represents them indirectly.
tmp10423288442 · 16m ago
How feasible is it in practice? In the US, it's possible in practice to remove officials via impeachment as well as amend the constitution, but in practice they are almost impossible to achieve. In practice the legislature is almost deadlocked for most non-budget bills as well, so the executive ends up running the country, with an assist from the judiciary.
The Swedish government can't intervene in the decisions of finansinspektionen.
Law comes from parliament alone, and the constitution does not permit for the executive (regeringen) to intervene in individual cases.
lucianbr · 1h ago
Who does "enforcement" in Sweden? Is the police somehow under the courts? Same for things like consumer protection agencies, environment protection and so on? Are prosecutors somehow in the same group as the judges? That may work for you, but I see some potential for abuse there as well. I think that is how it turned out in Japan, once you are prosecuted conviction is a foregone conclusion.
Zironic · 1h ago
The way it works is that the goverment (The politicians in executive positions) are allowed to write policy for all goverment agencies but they're not legally allowed to tell the agency how to handle any given individual case.
lucianbr · 1h ago
Who hires / appoints the chiefs of the agencies?
victorbjorklund · 1h ago
No, they are not. The police is under the control of the central government (and that includes the courts). Yes, it is true that swedish politicans dont want to give the impression they control the actions of the police etc but of course in the end they do. The difference is maybe in the US politicans say "I gave the order to the police to do X" while in Sweden they would say in private "you probably should do X or we might find a replacement"
benoau · 1h ago
The problem with this is big tech companies are very adept at stringing court-based enforcement along, that would defer this punishment until well into the 2030s and even the 2040s for actually rectifying the issues.
impossiblefork · 37m ago
Then you have to fix the courts in general so that such things are impossible.
immibis · 1h ago
It should at least have to be agreed by both the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.
victorbjorklund · 1h ago
You get that "myndigheterna" are under the government right? And that the government controls the authorities.
impossiblefork · 37m ago
Yes, but they can't actually make intervene in any individual case.
Y-bar · 1h ago
What do you say when Arbetsmiljöverket (labour regulation), Skatteverket (IRS), Ekobrottsmyndigheten (monterary crimes) take enforcement actions in Sweden and hand out decisions for fines and such?
The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.
impossiblefork · 31m ago
That's fine. They aren't politically appointed and in the end their decisions are checked by the courts.
The EU commission on the other hand actually has power.
As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.
bee_rider · 2h ago
Just a note, in case anyone thinks this is an insufficient punishment:
> The Commission has ordered Google (i) to bring these self-preferencing practices to an end; and (ii) to implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has now 60 days to inform the Commission about how it intends to do so.
It is on top of ordering them to fix the business practices. They can always issue more fines if Google doesn’t comply.
IMO some of us here want to see these companies hurt. That’s a non-goal for the EU, they are looking for compliance, not vengeance or something silly like that.
m4rtink · 2h ago
Why not both ? ;-)
bee_rider · 2h ago
Haha, yeah.
But they probably benefit from appearing steady, measured, and fair-minded.
blibble · 2h ago
the EU is the master of appearing steady, measured, and fair-minded
whilst being entirely fueled by both emotion and protectionism
bee_rider · 2h ago
I bet this move isn’t protectionist enough to actually scare Google away.
lucianbr · 1h ago
> Google has now 60 days
I hope I am wrong, and would be happy if that were the case, but I find these deadlines laughable. In reality Google will delay this in courts for at least 5 years. In which time they will make some extra billions, and then the fine will be cut to a quarter of the current value. And by then they will have invented a new way to abuse consumers, just different enough to be the object of a new investigation and new court case that also takes years.
Workaccount2 · 1h ago
Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it. This is like the 4th time they have gone to the Google bank demanding a $1B+ ransom.
And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene. I don't know how they expect competition to grow when they block all the sunlight in their tech fields.
If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.
zwaps · 9m ago
At this point there's about a hundred (or more) years of research, experience, law etc. in competition policy.
Competition doesn't necessarily just win in the mid-term. Competitions works - if the conditions are right, markets are anonymous and dynamic, not two-sided, not plaqued by information symmetries and - importantly - vertical entanglements. Competitions also works out in the long term. Like, take a hundred years and squint.
However, in the meantime of all this, there are many cases where the market outcome moves strikingly far away from the optimum. What that means is that the market situation destroys value (consumer welfare, societal roi, whatever)
You can scan the OP for about three sections and see that Google is violating any reasonable and established take on how market regulation, leading to an inefficient market outcome.
This is not some special European temperament. This is just standard and - just to make this clear - 100% American economic theory as previously applied and pioneered mainly in the good US of A.
If this doesn't get applied in the US now, we may call this regulatory capture.
Personally, I feel it also really speaks to the situation that Google is lauded as representing the US tech scene. I disagree here. I think the US tech scene goes far beyond Google. Google ain't even a particular strength, probably more of a weakness by now.
By contrast, you could (and should) bring up about a million things the EU and the commision in particular does to stifle a EU tech scene.
Bog standard application of competition policy ain't it.
StopDisinfo910 · 1h ago
That’s a complete red herring.
This is not Europe racketing Google. Google is losing the same kind of trial everywhere in the world including the US for one simple reason: they are actually using anticompetitive practices in the ad tech market.
Honestly the most likely to benefit from this verdict are other American companies. You are welcome for us doing the enforcement your country refuses to do.
dmix · 19m ago
Almost all the most famous anti-trust cases in America like against Microsoft
were not about monetary fines, they are first and foremost about changing practices (behavioural remedies). Microsoft didn't even pay any money, they had to change how they operated their business in the US.
Likewise with both the recent antitrust trials in the US against Google: In one government prosecutors wanted them to sell off Chrome, the other they are trying to break Google Ads monopoly by breaking it up.
This is not a system extracting billions of the dollar for the 4th time in a couple years. Especially as others have mentioned that this commission is also the one inventing the rules, so it can keep doing it indefinitely for new reasons.
1over137 · 35m ago
>the 4th time they have gone to the Google bank demanding a $1B+ ransom
Even if I accepted this premise, from a realpolitik lens, why not? The USA has gone to the 'taffif/trade war bank' like 40 times, so maybe fight fire with fire?
jasonsb · 1h ago
> Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it.
It really wouldn't.
We're having the wrong conversation here.
The reality is that these fines mean nothing for the average EU consumer. There's really no difference between a consumer in the EU, the US or China. As a EU consumer you win nothing from these fines. You won't be able to sue Google or any other company if they're abusing you or your data. You're just reading these stupid headlines about these huge fines and that's the end of it. Europe has huge power and could really change the way big companies work, but instead it chooses to do nothing but apply random huge fines here and there that change nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's a shame.
nonethewiser · 55m ago
They get the fine money. Either to the EU (relieves tax burden on member states) or directly to member states depending on the situation.
jasonsb · 42m ago
I'm not talking about those 10 EUR that I get as a european citizen. I'm talking about consumer friendly legislation. No amount of money will compensate for the fact that big corporations rule EU just like they rule any other place on this planet.
jacquesm · 18m ago
What do you think the GDPR is? Between 'Schrems' and the GDPR there has been a massive amount of change already and it is only gathering steam.
aucisson_masque · 29m ago
> And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene. I don't know how they expect competition to grow when they block all the sunlight in their tech fields.
Google is abusing his position to prevent other companies to compete, hence decreasing the likelihood of European tech companies emerging.
Beside, I don't see how having strong monopolistic companies is beneficial to Americans citizens beside the tech bros working in Silicon Valley ? American companies are being ripped off on advertising just as bad as european companies used to be, and obviously they were following google rip off on goods price and customer had to pay more.
fsflover · 45m ago
> take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene
Because American megacorps are killing it with their monopolistic actions?
lazide · 33m ago
Haha, no. The EU tech scene was dead (and has stayed dead) long before American megacorps even existed.
Why do you think Silicon Valley was in… Silicon Valley? It certainly isn’t because it monopolistically killed EU chip fabs!
They just didn’t exist, and went out of their way to be a huge hassle to exist, and the EU still doesn’t have decent chip fabrication abilities.
It’s the same for software.
fsflover · 31m ago
Maybe it was a real EU fault at that time, but now the monopolies definitely affect the market, as proven by the court.
lazide · 27m ago
Even if you nuked every one of them, the EU tech scene would still be dead. It’s a cultural problem. The EU would rather be comfortable than competitive.
And they are.
nemo44x · 56m ago
They’re in a panic. Euro boomers destroyed the place after their forefathers died to build it and keep it alive.
vader1 · 3h ago
Very fair. Doing anything with online advertising, either as an advertiser or as a publisher, without it involving any of Google's platforms is nearly impossible.
No comments yet
peterldowns · 2h ago
Can someone elaborate on the first accusation — "DFP favours AdX over rival Ad exchanges by e.g. informing it in advance of the best bid from competitors"? I'd be really curious to understand how it does this, like what information is actually shared that isn't also shared with other ad exchanges.
aucisson_masque · 33m ago
What the US couldn't do, Europe just did ?
> The Commission has already signalled its preliminary view that only the divestment by Google of part of its services would address the situation of inherent conflicts of interest, but it first wishes to hear and assess Google's proposal.
aka, breaking a monopoly.
thanks god for Europe.
dragonwriter · 29m ago
> What the US couldn't do, Europe just did ?
The remedy phase in the US trial over similar ad tech issues starts later this month, so it is premature to call it “what the US couldn’t do”.
(You may be confusing it with the recent partial ruling in the remedy phase of the separate search antitrust case.)
dmix · 30m ago
The US just won two antitrust trials in a row against Google in the past year. One for Google Ads and the other for Google Search (the chrome one).
Oh nice. I hope other countries follow suit. It’s quite a shame Google didn’t get Chrome divested from them in the US, would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web.
roscas · 3h ago
"would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web". I wish this was true.
The healing will be when all ads and marketing will be down to zero. This companies like Facebook and Google make their billions putting on your face what you don't want or need and someone else pays them good money for that.
You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web.
kyrra · 3h ago
This is a pipe dream. Advertising always has existed and always will. It comes and goes in different forms, but people like selling things they make or services they provide. Without a way of getting those things in front of people, nothing new could come to light.
I agree that some sites make advertisements a massive eyesore, but that's a problem that can be solved in other ways.
_aavaa_ · 3h ago
While that’s technically true it’s not true about the current type of advertising.
The ads we see online now (and the tracking that goes with it) are what, 20 years old?
The type of marketing and advertising we live with now is a direct descendent of research and work done in the last century (thanks Bernays).
The whole point of Google was to get people answers to questions they have. Our current approach to advertising creates the problems in people’s heads only to immediately sell the solution.
idle_zealot · 2h ago
> Without a way of getting those things in front of people, nothing new could come to light
This argument sounds intuitive, but are we really sure about that? People willingly seek out marketing materials to find things they want to buy. I've seen people flip through coupon books and catalogs as idle entertainment. That plus word of mouth may well be sufficient to keep knowledge of new products and such in circulation. Hell, it might even yield better-informed consumers, allowing the market to function more efficiently.
wkat4242 · 13m ago
One thing I'd worry about is ads would become unviable or banned somehow would be that companies would militarize the word of mouth element. Basically like the old tupperware parties.
scotty79 · 1h ago
You could say the same about prostitution and gambling. It's still worth to treat it as it should be treated and to try to curb it.
roscas · 15m ago
How can you compare a prostitue to a marketing person? A prostitute is still a person.
tirant · 2h ago
Marketing is extremely necessary in order to have competitive markets.
We can discuss about what are the best means or even limits in the contents of advertising but making it illegal is non sense.
scotty79 · 56m ago
National monopoly on advertising could be sufficient replacement.
eldenring · 2h ago
So what do you do if you have a better product and a "name brand" disadvantage? Advertising commodifies information flow instead of letting it pool with the people who already have access to it. Think of all the products that got big nowadays because they could convince VCs to fund ad spend, and saw a return for it.
I think advertising has a huge, positive, 2nd order effect on the world.
scotty79 · 57m ago
Entire advertising industry could be replaced by one database of products and services at a fraction of the cost to the consumer.
chankstein38 · 2h ago
Yeah the reality is they'll probably just find a way to sell MORE data to make the money for these fines.
idle_zealot · 3h ago
> You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web.
I've given some thought to this, and outright banning marketing sounds basically impossible. Not just from a "good luck getting that bill passed" sense, but in a practical one. Where do you draw the line on "marketing"? Presumably my writing a glowing review of a product I like won't be banned, and online banner ads will. I'm not trying to make a "the line is blurry therefore no regulation can happen" argument, rather I think "marketing" isn't really the right line. Specifically, what ought to be banned is the sale of attention. Anything where money or favors are changing hands in order to direct attention intentionally to your product, service, etc. So you can absolutely have a marketing page extolling the virtues of your brand. You cannot pay to have that page shoved in front of people's eyeballs.
Yes, I know that this kills the ad-based funding of the current internet. Let it burn. A mix of community-run free services and commercial paid services is infinitely preferable to the "free" trash we've grown dependent on.
To make an ethical argument: quantifying and selling human attention is gross anyway. Some things just don't belong on a market.
scotty79 · 55m ago
> Presumably my writing a glowing review of a product I like won't be banned
If you didn't take money from sources overtly connected to the brand or otherwise shady you won't be banned.
porridgeraisin · 1h ago
> practical one
I had a decent idea. Not that it's easily practical, but it's more practical than other solutions.
Major problem today is information asymmetry. Google giving you free YouTube videos is front and center. Google paying for it by linking your location and this and that fingerprint from here and there is hidden in whitewashed language 3 settings menus deep. Many things are hidden in bottom right of a billboard in fine print, t&c fine prints, etc,.
What I propose is the law making sure that all information about the product that you intend to or are forced to by regulation to make public, public in the same measure. That is, if you're going to advertise "coca cola, open happiness" you also need to have in the same fontsize "39g of sugar" right next to it. Similarly google search bar needs to say what info of yours helped serve the ads you see, right next to the content paid for by those ads.
If you're going to hide less palatable stuff in your t&c, then marketing logos slogans all become illegal for you. And all information even positive ones must also be in fontsize8 t&c fine print.
Real estate ads can't put *artists impression at the bottom right of their ad in fine print, it has to be as big as the main tagline.
You get the idea. What I gave are just examples, slight variations of the idea that still focus on information symmetry as the main goal, will also work.
aucisson_masque · 27m ago
I don't think we should expect much from the us justice system at the moment. All the biggest tech companies CEO were publicly donating millions on trump investiture, one can only imagine what else happens privately.
in my garden, if I see one rat it means there is at least a dozen more.
richwater · 3h ago
Running a browser without an ecosystem behind it is a money pit and would be worth almost 0.
isodev · 3h ago
Doesn’t matter, as consumers, we’re absolutely ducked from all sides as long as our “window into the web” is fully controlled by a single corp.
jaredklewis · 2h ago
Is it? I use Firefox. Can’t you just not use chrome, no legal interventions required?
fsflover · 43m ago
Tell that to billions of normies who followed Google's (illegal) ads of Chrome.
mupuff1234 · 3h ago
And if Chrome were to be divested it would have just gotten swallowed up by a different corp, most likely to end up in worse hands imo.
Can you name any other company that if they owned Chrome it would've been better for the users and the web?
bgarbiak · 2h ago
In that case people (some of them at least) would switch to a different browser. Reducing Chrome market share would be healthy for the web too.
mupuff1234 · 38m ago
Or we'll just get a duopoly where Microsoft and Apple control the web, both of which don't really have business incentives to improve it.
fsflover · 35m ago
You mean, like it is now?
mupuff1234 · 20m ago
Yes, but with companies that have even less incentive to actually make the web decent.
isodev · 3h ago
The issue is that Google is both the browser, the web standards, the ads, the mail, the search, the phone, the AI, the maps… not a chance to compete with any of that as long as it’s all in one. The only other barely approaching this level is Apple, and we know they have their own anticompetitive aspects.
Allowing corps to grow so much should never have been a thing.
scotty79 · 52m ago
If 10% of intel could be "sold" to the government maybe Chrome should be too? And the there could be 20 year ban written into law on selling it back to private.
lawlessone · 3h ago
>Can you name any other company that if they owned Chrome it would've been better for the users and the web?
Mozilla? Red Hat? Valve?
NekkoDroid · 3h ago
> Mozilla?
Already has a browser. With debatable success.
> Red Hat?
Would probably rather end up under the Linux Foundation and not RH. How development would then continue is up for debate.
> Valve?
They already use CEF for their Steam client IIRC, but I don't think they are too much interested in owning an entire browser. Especially considering Valve itself is a relatively small company emplyee wise.
bitpush · 3h ago
Mozilla already owns a browser, and gets free money from Google to do that. Yet, they have been mismanaging the whole time.
What makes you think they'll suddenly do a good job when the funding goes away, and they have to now support a large userbase which pays $0 to use the product.
LunaSea · 2h ago
Mozilla would immediately go bankrupt because Google wouldn't have to sponsor them anymore.
Red Hat has been acquired and is already well underway on the enshitification road.
Browsers are way too far from Valve's core business.
Xenoamorphous · 35m ago
It’s amusing to see how HN, notoriously pro-privacy and anti-ads seemingly dislikes this kind of news.
seydor · 2h ago
Awaiting amusing tweets (truths?) from the american baby in chief
I can't find any details about those past cases with regards to - did they actually ended up paying anything at all?
givemeethekeys · 1h ago
Cost of doing business. If these fines are to have any teeth, they need to be of a magnitude proportionate to company size. Otherwise, they are more of a petty cash shakedown.
belter · 37m ago
European Commission fines Google an amount equal to three Meta ML Experts signing bonus...
jennyholzer · 2h ago
chump change
amelius · 3h ago
Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business.
isoprophlex · 3h ago
Agreed. Megacorps where noone has actual honest skin in the game and every unethical decision can be paved over with money are bad news for most of us.
reorder9695 · 3h ago
Almost 3bn euros is one hell of a cost of business though, that's approximately a euro for every 2.5 people on the planet
thinkingtoilet · 3h ago
Until the rich people who green light things like this go to jail it will literally never stop. Someone, somewhere needs to be responsible for policies that break the law and they need to go to jail.
jjani · 2h ago
It's 15% of their yearly net profit in the region. Not even revenue.
3bn sounds like a lot because we haven't gotten used to the absurd profit levels that these monstrosities have reached.
reorder9695 · 2h ago
I actually do think that's significant, if someone took 15% of your yearly earnings this year that would definitely be noticed. I'm not saying it's the right amount, I'm saying that is enough to be felt and therefore isn't the tiny fines you often tend to see
Anonyneko · 2h ago
For Google that's a slap on the wrist.
generic92034 · 2h ago
But a slap which can easily be repeated (even with more force), if Google does not comply.
isodev · 3h ago
Google has been serving a lot of ads over the years.
udev4096 · 3h ago
They probably made 10x that already, not a big deal
djtango · 3h ago
Huh? Google generated 350B in revenues in 2024...
3B is pocket change to them
riku_iki · 1h ago
execs will jump with golden parachute after first strike.
mc32 · 2h ago
How would that work? Infraction > Officers quit; new set of officers > infraction > officers quit; new set of officers…
roscas · 3h ago
Just another day in the office. European Commission... commission...
roscas · 6m ago
Oh no, someone from the Commission just down voted me.
Bet it was those who were asked about corruption and cut the microphone to those who really care.
We do deserve better in Europe.
This one is for Google. But Facebook and others do the same. How can we let them do this.
If you have responsability and let this happen, you just allow it.
UrineSqueegee · 1h ago
thats all the EU knows to do
fsflover · 32m ago
That's a shallow dismissal, which is against the HN guidelines.
eth0up · 47m ago
I fully expect and won't blame the form of archery that will pursue this comment, but... Impulse must have its way once in a while.
With the unprecedented extrajudicial approach the US has recently taken against certain recreational boaters in the Caribbean, perhaps they will realize Google is far worse and apply similar tactics.
Lawsuits will never amount to anything. And they are taking over the world. And in my opinion, they're verifiably more hostile than any boater I've ever been made aware of, including people on jet skis.
With the very substance of reality dissolving before our eyes, and considering we may be but a twitch of a jingo fingertip away from nuking the homeless, why not?
nemo44x · 59m ago
Nvidea has a market cap greater than ALL of Germanys stock market. They should figure this out instead of extorting non-EU companies.
linotype · 1h ago
.
immibis · 1h ago
Innovation consists of forming unbreakable monopolies and then jacking up prices apparently.
There is a number of countries where Google has to deal with large levels of protectionist barriers (not the EU, these fines aren't that) and they still operate there. Korea is just one example. Because there's still a lot of money to be made. China isn't a counterexample: Google stopped operating search in China because at that point there was not a lot of money to be made for them in search there.
The EU is threading the needle deftly here, I guess.
Why forfeit $20B in revenue in exchange for NOT having to pay $3B? I think that's an astute observation by the original commenter.
EDIT: FWIW I think your observation that the EU is threading a needle stands. It's a controversial topic that people are very passionate about.
I am not sure why but otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be incapable of internalizing that any cost, expense, or fine levied against any corporate entity will always, with 100% (not any other percentage) be rolled into prices. The minor headache of it lowering returns will also be offset and will not really make a difference to any meaningful degree. Most likely Google, just like other corporations that are exposed to this kind of risk, will have set aside a "war chest" they have been building up over prior years, which further would defray any real impact.
Then of course there is the fact that these fines are rarely ever the actual amount that will be paid in the end, and most of the time it can be distributed over time.
What people should really take away from this is that in the end it really is kind of an extortion racket by the EU, but not of Google, but rather of the advertising companies the end consumers who end up paying from he higher priced ads through product prices, and possibly the general Google customer base.
This would really only be an issue that materially impacted Google if there were some kind of real competition in the space, which there is not really. What the EU could possibly do that would have a notable impact is setting industry standards to, e.g., a universal ad format that is ad broker agnostic, e.g., your app, site, service, etc could just serve up ads from all kinds of places, a kind of free market of ads not dominated by Google.
But even with that, with Google's advancement in AI generated content, they will likely also dominate the ad generation market soon.
The oddest thing is that the EU and Europe in general has all but floundered in many ways regarding the generation of a competitive technology industry. But that's a whole different topic.
That will make Google less competitive and allow more players on the market, breaking their monopoly. Not a bad outcome and probably exactly the point of these fines.
Of course, in a market with this degree of concentrated market power, those fines would have to be very very high indeed...
Google applying tariffs to itself in Europe might be something the EC may a) investigate and fine Google for ripping off Europeans, and/or b) approve of; they previously considered a big-tech tax to improve competition in Europe. Google would be doing them a favor, and Trump won't send them a nastygram this time around.
>build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
My guess is that exactly this similarity coupled with a pinch of humour, was what caused op to classify it as such.
The EU would use public funding to build some sort of Google alternative and it would take ages, would be mediocre and most money would go to waste. Instead of incentivising entrepreneurship, which is what they probably should do.
We live very well in the EU. We don’t have to have millions in savings in order to retire. Strong worker protection. Plenty of time off. Low crime rates. Most people fantasise with becoming rich, but as in, “I had a rich aunt that I didn’t even meet in my life and I was the sole heir” or “I won the lottery”, not as in “I grinded for the best 10 years of my life working 100 hours per week before I sold my company” that seems more prevalent in the US. Ordinary people here are super happy if they can buy a small place to live (not a humongous house) even if it takes 25 years to pay it in full, then finish work at 5 and take their kids to the park and have dinner at some restaurant on Saturday.
OTOH: I think the current US administration is the best think that could happen to the EU, a big wake up call. Suddenly there’s money to invest in Defense and that kind of thing.
Also, hopefully LLMs will diminish Google’s importance, and as long as there’s competitive models not from the US (Mistral, DeepSeek) we might be fine. But Google holds all the cards (data). With stuff like the Harvard animosity they might even stop attracting all the foreign talent.
Apple? There’s Samsung for phones at least. Amazon? They’ve become a Temu/Aliexpress. Facebook… huge win if they stopped doing business in Europe. MS? This is the year of Linux in desktop?
The Cloud is one of those things where the EU could build something competitive/alternative just with public funding. All running on Linux, of course.
Source?
Back in 2010 when Google left, their search market share was close to 30%. It's hard to think there was no money to be made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
I'm aware of a single record case that cost the perp 350K. You really don't want to get zapped with the maximum fines based on wilful transgressions on large numbers of people.
edit: I misremembered, it was 100K higher.
The EU has 450M (+80M for UK & similar non-eu countries that are likely to follow the EU on such regulations) population to the US' 350M.
The moment the likes of Google, or Meta, or Microsoft, or whomever else leave the EU, they immediately create a market gap. A market gap that will then in short order be filled with a European company that, because of the population sizes, has a notable comparative advantage to the US tech company.
+ As much as HN's readership loathes to admit it, regulations like this are "Good, Actually". Google's monopolist practices are bad for both advertisers and services showing ads. Any would-be competitor that arises from Google leaving the market would, by virtue of being forced by law to not be so shitty, be the better option. (And yes, this does also apply to pretty much all of the other big tech regulations as well.)
Like, c'mon. "Monopolies bad" is capitalism 101. Even the US' regulators thought Google was going too far.
My hot take is that if they want to leave, then they can fuck right off. If you think your desires, profits, or business practices extend beyond democracy, then I don't need your business. Private enterprise should support and assist democracy, not the other way around (there's obviously some leeway there, but by and large).
A lot of it is a because the US brands are more recognizable and cheaper (due to dumping) and grow faster (due to the USA's VC glut).
IIRC a company like AirBNB was started in Europe, and was slowly growing, and couldn't get investment because "who would want this?" and then AirBNB was created, and then arrived in Europe, and they still couldn't get investment because "who wants a ripoff clone of AirBNB?"
The standard model for tech firms has been to run at enormous losses to push competition into bankruptcy or steal their users through subsidized service.
No European social media company could compete with e.g. Twitter, running at a loss for TWELVE years.
In more recent years, it's things like Uber. Subsidizing ride costs to crush existing taxi services & European taxi startups.
This is all, ostensibly, illegal under international law. You can't do it for cars or commodity goods. It's just not been enforced on the tech industry.
Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either....
This is plainly untrue if you're talking about tech beyond the mag-7 sized supergiants.
> Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either....
And yet it is the tech giants in the US, oh so praised for their size, that are the "weeds" in many regards.
What good is Google when it's reliant on an advertising monopoly itself built entirely on monopolistic and fraudulent exploitation of the rest of the economy.
What good is Amazon when it's reliant on crushing all other retail and local manufacturing?
I give them money, and in return I get stuff that "all other retail" failed to provide.
That's good.
Wait, weren't Merkel's "Fachkräfte" supposed to boost the EU economy to the moon creating tones of innovative companies? /s
>If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas.
Irony is you're being downvoted into oblivion for being 100% correct, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable so you have to be buried in downvotes because nobody can or wants to address this issue.
And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/european-union/largest-compan...
Maybe therefore the downvotes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_E...
Really? How many of the illegal boat immigrants work in the German healthcare sector? Because last time I checked they were mostly EU workers who got their job before crossing the border. Actual doctors and nurses don't need to cross borders illegally to get a job. I wasn't talking about skilled, LEGAL immigrants like doctors and nurses, I was talking about the other „Fachkräfte“ that tend to make the news.
>And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil.
Maybe he meant in the tech sector. Because I can't take the LVMH sweatshop seriously even if they're making a lot of money. And the other companies on the list, FANG are worth more than all of them combined. I think even Nvidia is worth more than all of them.
And he’s, uh… very motivated by what others have to offer him… so FAANG clearly has some leverage there, but I don’t think it is necessarily a sure thing they’ll work something out.
How about a little tariff reduction to get rid of this fine for Google.
That’s how Trump makes his deals.
BTW where is the US pushed around? Reversed victim and offender?
No comments yet
No matter what anyone does, he just moves the goal posts. Let him keep his ball.
Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians.
I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system. It should be done by an impartial regular, or prosecutor or a court. This kind of system opens up the commission to political blackmail and threats from powerful states, it opens up for corruption, it opens up for uneven enforcement, and there's just no reason to have the system this way.
You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.
In fact, this seems to be pretty similar to Sweden, quoting from [1]:
> Most state administrative authorities (statliga förvaltningsmyndigheter), as opposed to local authorities (kommuner), sorts under the Government, including the Armed Forces, Coast Guard, Customs Service and the police.
It appears that the swedish government can also initiate legislation, just like the commission (although the Riksdag can initiate on their own, something the European parliament cannot).
Also, fwiw: The fines can also be adjusted or cancelled by the court of Justice of the EU
There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.
My understanding is Sweden's "SEC" (in US terms) is called Finansinspektionen. Wouldnt this EU commission be like the Finansinspektionen issuing a fine or revoking a license if a bank didnt comply with regulations? My understanding is the Finansinspektionen can do this sort of thing but has to go to the court for larger actions.
Perhaps the EU commission has a bit more leeway?
The European Commission is both the executive and legal branch. They propose the legislation that the European Parliament can only approve or reject. On the other hand, the European Patliament can not propose anything at all.
The Commission is elected by member states and thus represents them indirectly.
Law comes from parliament alone, and the constitution does not permit for the executive (regeringen) to intervene in individual cases.
The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.
The EU commission on the other hand actually has power.
As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.
> The Commission has ordered Google (i) to bring these self-preferencing practices to an end; and (ii) to implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has now 60 days to inform the Commission about how it intends to do so.
It is on top of ordering them to fix the business practices. They can always issue more fines if Google doesn’t comply.
IMO some of us here want to see these companies hurt. That’s a non-goal for the EU, they are looking for compliance, not vengeance or something silly like that.
But they probably benefit from appearing steady, measured, and fair-minded.
whilst being entirely fueled by both emotion and protectionism
I hope I am wrong, and would be happy if that were the case, but I find these deadlines laughable. In reality Google will delay this in courts for at least 5 years. In which time they will make some extra billions, and then the fine will be cut to a quarter of the current value. And by then they will have invented a new way to abuse consumers, just different enough to be the object of a new investigation and new court case that also takes years.
And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene. I don't know how they expect competition to grow when they block all the sunlight in their tech fields.
If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.
Competition doesn't necessarily just win in the mid-term. Competitions works - if the conditions are right, markets are anonymous and dynamic, not two-sided, not plaqued by information symmetries and - importantly - vertical entanglements. Competitions also works out in the long term. Like, take a hundred years and squint.
However, in the meantime of all this, there are many cases where the market outcome moves strikingly far away from the optimum. What that means is that the market situation destroys value (consumer welfare, societal roi, whatever)
You can scan the OP for about three sections and see that Google is violating any reasonable and established take on how market regulation, leading to an inefficient market outcome.
This is not some special European temperament. This is just standard and - just to make this clear - 100% American economic theory as previously applied and pioneered mainly in the good US of A. If this doesn't get applied in the US now, we may call this regulatory capture.
Personally, I feel it also really speaks to the situation that Google is lauded as representing the US tech scene. I disagree here. I think the US tech scene goes far beyond Google. Google ain't even a particular strength, probably more of a weakness by now.
By contrast, you could (and should) bring up about a million things the EU and the commision in particular does to stifle a EU tech scene. Bog standard application of competition policy ain't it.
This is not Europe racketing Google. Google is losing the same kind of trial everywhere in the world including the US for one simple reason: they are actually using anticompetitive practices in the ad tech market.
Honestly the most likely to benefit from this verdict are other American companies. You are welcome for us doing the enforcement your country refuses to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
were not about monetary fines, they are first and foremost about changing practices (behavioural remedies). Microsoft didn't even pay any money, they had to change how they operated their business in the US.
Likewise with both the recent antitrust trials in the US against Google: In one government prosecutors wanted them to sell off Chrome, the other they are trying to break Google Ads monopoly by breaking it up.
This is not a system extracting billions of the dollar for the 4th time in a couple years. Especially as others have mentioned that this commission is also the one inventing the rules, so it can keep doing it indefinitely for new reasons.
Even if I accepted this premise, from a realpolitik lens, why not? The USA has gone to the 'taffif/trade war bank' like 40 times, so maybe fight fire with fire?
It really wouldn't.
We're having the wrong conversation here.
The reality is that these fines mean nothing for the average EU consumer. There's really no difference between a consumer in the EU, the US or China. As a EU consumer you win nothing from these fines. You won't be able to sue Google or any other company if they're abusing you or your data. You're just reading these stupid headlines about these huge fines and that's the end of it. Europe has huge power and could really change the way big companies work, but instead it chooses to do nothing but apply random huge fines here and there that change nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's a shame.
Google is abusing his position to prevent other companies to compete, hence decreasing the likelihood of European tech companies emerging.
Beside, I don't see how having strong monopolistic companies is beneficial to Americans citizens beside the tech bros working in Silicon Valley ? American companies are being ripped off on advertising just as bad as european companies used to be, and obviously they were following google rip off on goods price and customer had to pay more.
Because American megacorps are killing it with their monopolistic actions?
Why do you think Silicon Valley was in… Silicon Valley? It certainly isn’t because it monopolistically killed EU chip fabs!
They just didn’t exist, and went out of their way to be a huge hassle to exist, and the EU still doesn’t have decent chip fabrication abilities.
It’s the same for software.
And they are.
No comments yet
> The Commission has already signalled its preliminary view that only the divestment by Google of part of its services would address the situation of inherent conflicts of interest, but it first wishes to hear and assess Google's proposal.
aka, breaking a monopoly.
thanks god for Europe.
The remedy phase in the US trial over similar ad tech issues starts later this month, so it is premature to call it “what the US couldn’t do”.
(You may be confusing it with the recent partial ruling in the remedy phase of the separate search antitrust case.)
The healing will be when all ads and marketing will be down to zero. This companies like Facebook and Google make their billions putting on your face what you don't want or need and someone else pays them good money for that.
You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web.
I agree that some sites make advertisements a massive eyesore, but that's a problem that can be solved in other ways.
The ads we see online now (and the tracking that goes with it) are what, 20 years old?
The type of marketing and advertising we live with now is a direct descendent of research and work done in the last century (thanks Bernays).
The whole point of Google was to get people answers to questions they have. Our current approach to advertising creates the problems in people’s heads only to immediately sell the solution.
This argument sounds intuitive, but are we really sure about that? People willingly seek out marketing materials to find things they want to buy. I've seen people flip through coupon books and catalogs as idle entertainment. That plus word of mouth may well be sufficient to keep knowledge of new products and such in circulation. Hell, it might even yield better-informed consumers, allowing the market to function more efficiently.
We can discuss about what are the best means or even limits in the contents of advertising but making it illegal is non sense.
I think advertising has a huge, positive, 2nd order effect on the world.
I've given some thought to this, and outright banning marketing sounds basically impossible. Not just from a "good luck getting that bill passed" sense, but in a practical one. Where do you draw the line on "marketing"? Presumably my writing a glowing review of a product I like won't be banned, and online banner ads will. I'm not trying to make a "the line is blurry therefore no regulation can happen" argument, rather I think "marketing" isn't really the right line. Specifically, what ought to be banned is the sale of attention. Anything where money or favors are changing hands in order to direct attention intentionally to your product, service, etc. So you can absolutely have a marketing page extolling the virtues of your brand. You cannot pay to have that page shoved in front of people's eyeballs.
Yes, I know that this kills the ad-based funding of the current internet. Let it burn. A mix of community-run free services and commercial paid services is infinitely preferable to the "free" trash we've grown dependent on.
To make an ethical argument: quantifying and selling human attention is gross anyway. Some things just don't belong on a market.
If you didn't take money from sources overtly connected to the brand or otherwise shady you won't be banned.
I had a decent idea. Not that it's easily practical, but it's more practical than other solutions.
Major problem today is information asymmetry. Google giving you free YouTube videos is front and center. Google paying for it by linking your location and this and that fingerprint from here and there is hidden in whitewashed language 3 settings menus deep. Many things are hidden in bottom right of a billboard in fine print, t&c fine prints, etc,.
What I propose is the law making sure that all information about the product that you intend to or are forced to by regulation to make public, public in the same measure. That is, if you're going to advertise "coca cola, open happiness" you also need to have in the same fontsize "39g of sugar" right next to it. Similarly google search bar needs to say what info of yours helped serve the ads you see, right next to the content paid for by those ads.
If you're going to hide less palatable stuff in your t&c, then marketing logos slogans all become illegal for you. And all information even positive ones must also be in fontsize8 t&c fine print.
Real estate ads can't put *artists impression at the bottom right of their ad in fine print, it has to be as big as the main tagline.
You get the idea. What I gave are just examples, slight variations of the idea that still focus on information symmetry as the main goal, will also work.
in my garden, if I see one rat it means there is at least a dozen more.
Can you name any other company that if they owned Chrome it would've been better for the users and the web?
Mozilla? Red Hat? Valve?
Already has a browser. With debatable success.
> Red Hat?
Would probably rather end up under the Linux Foundation and not RH. How development would then continue is up for debate.
> Valve?
They already use CEF for their Steam client IIRC, but I don't think they are too much interested in owning an entire browser. Especially considering Valve itself is a relatively small company emplyee wise.
What makes you think they'll suddenly do a good job when the funding goes away, and they have to now support a large userbase which pays $0 to use the product.
Red Hat has been acquired and is already well underway on the enshitification road.
Browsers are way too far from Valve's core business.
I can't find any details about those past cases with regards to - did they actually ended up paying anything at all?
3bn sounds like a lot because we haven't gotten used to the absurd profit levels that these monstrosities have reached.
3B is pocket change to them
Bet it was those who were asked about corruption and cut the microphone to those who really care.
We do deserve better in Europe.
This one is for Google. But Facebook and others do the same. How can we let them do this.
If you have responsability and let this happen, you just allow it.
With the unprecedented extrajudicial approach the US has recently taken against certain recreational boaters in the Caribbean, perhaps they will realize Google is far worse and apply similar tactics.
Lawsuits will never amount to anything. And they are taking over the world. And in my opinion, they're verifiably more hostile than any boater I've ever been made aware of, including people on jet skis.
With the very substance of reality dissolving before our eyes, and considering we may be but a twitch of a jingo fingertip away from nuking the homeless, why not?
What did Google do that its competition didn't?