The EU is reportedly planning to hit Google with yet another antitrust fine

[Polycount]

Google is in trouble with the EU yet again, but this time around, the penalties could be much more severe.

For the unaware, Google was hit with a $2.72 billion fine back in June 2017, following a six-year antitrust case lodged against the company by the European Union Commission.

At the time, the Commission found that Google was systematically giving "prominent placement" to its own comparison shopping service by manipulating search rankings. Furthermore, the Commission claimed Google actively demoted rival comparison shopping services in search results.

Now, however, Google is expected to get hit with a much larger fine; the penalty for the EU Commission's latest antitrust case could be up to $11 billion, though the final amount will likely be lower than that.

The reason for this substantial fine increase lies in new information discovered by the Commission. Specifically, the regulatory organization found that Google binds phone makers by certain anti-competitive rules if they want to use the Android mobile operating system.

The search giant reportedly requires Android device manufacturers to include Google Search and the Google Play Store as the default search and store options on all new devices. Google publicly defended their business model in a blog post published back in 2016, but it seems the company's protests won't be enough to dodge regulatory action.

At any rate, the EU Commission is expected to tally up and issue the total fine amount sometime today or Wednesday. We'll update this article if we learn more.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/75539-eu-reportedly-planning-hit-google-another-antitrust-fine.html

 

[SirChocula]

Not like it matters for their bottom line but I love seeing these corporations get hit with lawsuits/fines. Down with the technocracy!

 

[Hexic]

What a crime, promoting your own products within your own platform.

Stupid capitalism.

 

[FF222]

What a crime, promoting your own products within your own platform.

That's not a crime, and that's not Google will be punished for. The actual crime Google committed is abuse of market power - ie. Google muscling Android manufacturers into pre-installing Google's stuff, and not letting them get rid of it, or install competitor products instead.

 

[Hexic]

That's not a crime, and that's not Google will be punished for. The actual crime Google committed is abuse of market power - ie. Google muscling Android manufacturers into pre-installing Google's stuff, and not letting them get rid of it, or install competitor products instead.

If you're gonna use Google's ecosystem, then it's their choice to force an install of anything they like - that's what you can do when you own the entire gig.

Whether they let certain things be installed or not is also their choice. Google is not a federal utility, they can run their business how they like. If someone doesn't like it, move to another platform. There are other options.

This is a clear issue... Or lack thereof. The EU is much more socialistic regarding this, and they are viewing large companies as utilities, and therefore get legislated as such. Doesn't make sense.

 

[FF222]

If you're gonna use Google's ecosystem, then it's their choice to force an install of anything they like

Obviously something that's forced is not and can not be the subject of (free) choice. You just debunked your own statement.

The EU is much more socialistic regarding this

This has nothing to do with socialism. Competition laws all over the world prohibit abuse of market power. The only difference is how strict these rules are enforced. Obviously not so strict in the US, at least against domestic companies anyway. Thank god the EU is less corrupt in this sense.

 

[Hexic]

Obviously something that's forced is not and can not be the subject of (free) choice. You just debunked your own statement.


This has nothing to do with socialism. Competition laws all over the world prohibit abuse of market power. The only difference is how strict these rules are enforced. Obviously not so strict in the US, at least against domestic companies anyway. Thank god the EU is less corrupt in this sense.

The free choice of using the service is not forced, so you are speaking in circles.

And your version of "corrupt" is a moot point. If classifying corporate services was treated as a utility then there would be no incentive to create and grow business due to the fear of being legislated to the ground.

I hear the iFail has some pretty slick devices.

 

[FF222]

The free choice of using the service is not forced

Now, only if you'd not talk about something you obviously know nothing about, you'd also know that it's not "use of services" that has been forced, but the pre-installation of Google's apps and services (and the prohibition of making devices with competitive forks) by the manufacturer. Which is still abuse of market power, and still stifling of competition, regardless of the ability of installation and use of other services technically being possible by the end user.

 

[Hexic]

Now, only if you'd not talk about something you obviously know nothing about, you'd also know that it's not "use of services" that has been forced, but the pre-installation of Google's apps and services (and the prohibition of making devices with competitive forks) by the manufacturer. Which is still abuse of market power, and still stifling of competition, regardless of the ability of installation and use of other services technically being possible by the end user.

You're still missing the concept of using Google's ecosystem being a willful choice to use, or not to use.

But by all means, keep toting the "equally fair" rhetoric in the free market economy. Orwell has had a thing or two to say about that line of thought. Yet, history never appears to learn from it's own mistakes, so that supposition could be a moot point after all.

 

[FF222]

You're still missing the concept of using Google's ecosystem being a willful choice to use, or not to use.

The very essence and meaning of a monopoly is, that by definition, you've no actual choice, but to use it or buy from it. That's why these prohibitions and restrictions (that Google has violated) are applicable only to monopolies, but not to small businesses. What you said is only true for the latter; because there you indeed have the choice to do business with it or not. But with a monopoly, you've no practical and economic way to avoid doing business with it or to conform and abide to it, one way or the other.

But by all means, keep toting the "equally fair" rhetoric in the free market economy.

You're beating a straw man there. You were the only one using this term and doing that here. I, on the other side, just pointed out what the law says. I, unlike you, did not "tote" anything, or say that whether I think this or that rule is bad or good. You, on the other side, did exactly that.

Orwell has had a thing or two to say about that line of thought. Yet, history never appears to learn from it's own mistakes, so that supposition could be a moot point after all.

The only moot point here is, that just because somebody has said something, and just because that person happened to be semi-known, doesn't mean jack about whether he or what he was said is right, by any means. It's called the appeal to authority fallacy, and you've just committed it.