Google hit with record EU fine over Shopping service
 

Google has been fined 2.42bn euros ($2.7bn; £2.1bn) by the European Commission after it ruled the company had abused its power by promoting its own shopping comparison service at the top of search results.

The amount is the regulator's largest penalty to date against a company accused of distorting the market.

The ruling also orders Google to end its anti-competitive practices within 90 days or face a further penalty.

The US firm said it may appeal.

However, if it fails to change the way it operates the Shopping service within the three-month deadline, it could be forced to make payments of 5% of its parent company Alphabet's average daily worldwide earnings.

Based on the company's most recent financial report, that amounts to about $14m a day.

"What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules," declared Margrethe Vestager, the European Union's Competition Commissioner.

Continued Google hit with record EU fine over Shopping service - BBC News

Google AdWords just got more expensive in the EU ...

ill read it later.,
but what did google actually do ?

Google gave themselves undue advantage in the shopping searches.. I mean DUH if you use Google to search for shit their shit that they have deals with are coming up first

It's Googles site, are the EU now telling Google what they can or can not put on their site?

I wonder how big a fine they gonna pay if they release their chrome adblocker in 6 months, after a thousand ad networks will shut down.

hahahaha :thumbsup

Yes.

Just like Visa/MasterCard tells you what you can put on your site.

Just like your host tells you what you can put on your site.

AdWords sales will go up a lot more than any fine.
Ad networks will need to create ads that wont be blocked -- the strong and smartest will survive.

let's say you have an online store selling shoes and your potential customers never find you because Google always puts their shopping results on top of you when people look for what you are selling.

clearer now?

Antimonopoly laws - they have their purpose. Fuck Google.

No it's not any clearer. Google doesn't have monopoly power for online search, there are dozens of alternatives, some better than others, so customer has a choice, they just happen to choose google because it offers the best user experience.

This whole thing is kinda like going back 15 years in time and attempting to fine thehun for not listing your galleries. :error

you obviously don't understand the lawsuit :2 cents:

Now this is a legit question.

Chrome will not block "good ads".

:1orglaugh

. Search Engine Market Share in Europe 2016 ... Google, 91.92%

That is an almost, damn close monopoly
gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/europe/2016

"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."

Clearly, google is not the only supplier of search on the net, there are dozens of alternatives, they just happen to be the most popular. :2 cents:

Yes and they misuse that position... which is unlawful.

Abuse of Monopoly Power

Chapter 2 of the Competition Act states it is illegal for a dominant firm to abuse its monopoly power.

Firstly the OFT must investigate whether firms have a dominant position they will look at:

National or regional market share. Usually a firm would have to have at least 40% of the market to be considered to be a dominant firm.



Abuse of Monopoly Power | Economics Help

Enjoy reading.. :winkwink:

Definition of Monopoly:

A pure monopoly is defined as a single seller of a product, i.e. 100% of market share.

In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. For example, Tesco @30% market share or Google 90% of search engine traffic.

:winkwink:

Monopoly | Economics Help

This is for UK but such laws are everywhere.

"The Contestability of the market. If barriers to entry are low then the incumbent firm is unlikely to be dominant even with a high market share because new firms can enter if profits are high."

There are dozens of competitors in the search space showing that "barriers to entry are low", consumers can easily switch to another search engine, etc, so I wouldn't agree they have "dominant" position.

Facebook is a 100x better example of "dominant". "Network effect" prevents competitors from easily entering the market, users can't easily switch to another social network, because the whole point is that friends need to be on the same network, etc.

Google really has very little power, I can switch to bing or some other search engine within 2 clicks and never visit google again, so I don't see how they are "dominant".

So with over 90% of market share, you don't agree they are dominant? :1orglaugh

It is defined by EU law, it doesn't matter what you or someone else considers a monopoly.

IMO .. Google is the prime example of uber monopoly. They even used them as an example.

How can something be a monopoly if it takes 2 clicks to switch to for example bing, an essentially identical product?

Good layman's definition of monopoly is "if they have you by the balls, then they are a monopoly, otherwise not", clearly google doesn't meet that definition, if google pissed me off, I could switch to bing and my life would be no different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...e_of_dominance

More reading for you..

First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer."

Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market"


With over 90% no one can doubt they are fucking dominant, jesus

I see.

You're trying to get post count up by pretending not to be able to read.

Why waste our time? So you can get 3 cents a post? At least earn it by listening and responding accordingly please :thumbsup

WRONG! again.

Visa/MC and your host may tell you you cannot have illegal content, but they never tell you what legal ads you can present OR the placement on the page.

To put is simply a monopoly will produce less of a good and charge a higher price for it than in a competitive market. This is bad for consumers because there is less of a product and it costs more. In a theoretical perfectly competitive market, price and output are set by the supply and demand.

Sergey Bris and Larry Brin ought to take their little rat faces and scurry off to Israel while they can :)

Is Google a conspiracy?

Tumblr exclude kids from porn, Youtube won't allow porn, etc.

Aren't Adwords governed by what people can pay?

So use Bing or Yahoo. It's their search engine and they have no duty to put sites to the top.

^^^^ :thumbsup

It's an outside influence, the EU, dictating to a company that has got to the top by delivering what the consumer wants.

Paul - people are using a search engine in good faith. They expect results that are relevant to their search.

Google did not display the results labelled as "sponsored ads". They delivered the results as if a genuine search of the market place had occurred.

This was a lie.

Every company wants a monopoly, but yeah they will likely rank sites based on what helps their own profits, while telling you it's all about quality :2 cents:

it does not make any difference if google users are voluntary or not, the only thing that matters is the market share...if market share greater than specific amount = monopoly....if monopoly = monopoly laws...

you have no idea what the lawsuit is about :2 cents:

A very interesting lawsuit and an important precedent coming up.

Another detail I forgot to mention is that their service happens to be completely free.

So it's kinda like if I were to open a hamburger shop in my town that gave hamburgers away, with intention of making $$ on the beverages I sell. People would drive 100s of miles to take advantage of this new brilliant business plan I came up with, and obviously I would achieve high market share.

Then some government bureaucrats would bitch and whine that my business is anti-competitive, that I have to give customers a balanced choice of beverages, that I'm not allowed to just sell my own Mikey's lemonade. :1orglaugh

Well said.. An explanation for idiots, yet most of them won't get it.. :winkwink:

No Paul, such laws exist in every capitalist country, not just EU.

Without them we wouldn't have any competition, because the huge companies estalished in the beginning have the money and power to ruin any new company trying to touch their market share.

Understand? These laws are actually fair and much needed.

Microsoft is another monopoly fined by EU ..and not just once..

Microsoft hit with $730 million antitrust fine by EU
Microsoft hit with $730 million antitrust fine by EU - Mar. 6, 2013


Microsoft Corp v Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micros...p_v_Commission


Cry me a river.. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Their service isn't free, what are you 12?

You give personal data, surfing habits, their ability to read the contents of your email, and more, in exchange of using Google services.

Google is not free.

Around here, when no monetary cost is involved = "free".

By your logic, my free hamburger business wouldn't be "free" either, eh? Cause I would learn that John likes hamburgers with cheese, and that Jane always orders extra large fries, magically turning me giving away shit for "free", into "not free"? :helpme :error

There is no alternative when Google has ~97% market share, you do not get that?

They literally put me out of business for a while after they suspended my account for no reason (their lawyer told me, but he could not do anything since Adwords is a separate entity) back in 2010. 8 years of building an honest Adwords business down the drain. A murderer gets a lower sentence here, for Google, it is suspended for life. Assholes. I wish they left overnight, still do (even though I have a new account on another business, which will never be at its full potential because I'm afraid they will put me and my family on the street).

Google is a free to use search engine, if it were paid for I would agree with your point. It's under no obligation to give user anything that it doesn't want.

Yes it is. Unless people want to pay to get their services to the top of the list. For the user, it's still free.

To the user it's free. So your analogy isn't right. To the advertisers, they can choose to pay to get a more favourable listing.

Deception is deception whatever the price.

Deception is deception whether my market share is 1% or 100%.

Its really not complicated.

:thumbsup