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.
pendenthistory · 47s 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.
jaredklewis · 48m ago
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.
bee_rider · 35m 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.
PhantomHour · 1m ago
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.
impossiblefork · 1m ago
I don't think this decisions 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.
bee_rider · 40m 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 · 25m ago
Why not both ? ;-)
bee_rider · 21m ago
Haha, yeah.
But they probably benefit from appearing steady, measured, and fair-minded.
blibble · 3m ago
the EU is the master of appearing steady, measured, and fair-minded
whilst being entirely fueled by both emotion and protectionism
vader1 · 1h 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
isodev · 1h ago
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 · 1h 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 · 1h 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.
idle_zealot · 11m 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.
_aavaa_ · 56m 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.
tirant · 22m 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.
eldenring · 50m 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.
chankstein38 · 31m 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 · 58m 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.
richwater · 1h ago
Running a browser without an ecosystem behind it is a money pit and would be worth almost 0.
isodev · 1h 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 · 42m ago
Is it? I use Firefox. Can’t you just not use chrome, no legal interventions required?
mupuff1234 · 1h 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?
isodev · 1h 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.
bgarbiak · 39m 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.
lawlessone · 1h 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 · 54m 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 · 57m 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 · 53m 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.
peterldowns · 51m 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.
seydor · 46m ago
Awaiting amusing tweets (truths?) from the american baby in chief
jennyholzer · 24m ago
chump change
greatwhitenorth · 28m ago
Europe can't compete with big tech, so they write regulations/laws and fine them. Easy money.
tossandthrow · 8m ago
It is not that the EU can't compete, it is that the US don't enforce their own antitrust laws - and that the EU has to step in to ensure fair competition.
amelius · 1h 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 · 1h 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 · 1h 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 · 1h 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 · 53m 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 · 8m 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 · 32m ago
For Google that's a slap on the wrist.
generic92034 · 8m ago
But a slap which can easily be repeated (even with more force), if Google does not comply.
isodev · 1h ago
Google has been serving a lot of ads over the years.
udev4096 · 1h ago
They probably made 10x that already, not a big deal
djtango · 59m ago
Huh? Google generated 350B in revenues in 2024...
3B is pocket change to them
mc32 · 42m ago
How would that work? Infraction > Officers quit; new set of officers > infraction > officers quit; new set of officers…
roscas · 1h ago
Just another day in the office. European Commission... commission...
juajajajaj · 28m ago
Regulatory fines on US tech are Europe's fastest growing sector
tossandthrow · 11m ago
Only as a response to the US establishing anti competitive practices for their tech industry.
bgwalter · 10m ago
It is almost like a 15% tariff on Google. I wonder who did that first.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
No comments yet
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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