EU fines Google €890M for competition breaches over search and apps
Posted by Stevvo 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by input_sh 1 day ago
Google Search decision: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
Android decision: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
Comment by dlahoda 1 day ago
Look like feature request lists.
Comment by moronicles 1 day ago
If this were granted, the expectation is that we would act surprised when it is fast-followed by requirements to use EU-controlled systems that can monitor this content.
Comment by benoau 1 day ago
Comment by moronicles 1 day ago
Comment by baridbelmedar 1 day ago
Key sectors could take the hit, including automotive manufacturing, industrial equipment, chemicals, electronics, fashion, textiles, and luxury food and wine.
Given that these nations are already managing high debt loads while funding generous social welfare programs and expanding their defense budgets, trade sanctions could cause serious damage...
So yeah...EU is performing a delicate balancing act here.
Comment by pseudony 1 day ago
The US needs military bases, it needs general market access, it wants to sell military equipment and so on and so on. The US is already being reckless with the relationship and diversification is underway, but how deep the split will be is in large part determined by how the US wants to behave going forward.
It's like a divorce, there aren't really any winners here (in terms of wealth, assets, ...). So it's a tightrope both need to walk, balancing each other's interests.
Comment by leonidasrup 1 day ago
The real danger of US retaliation for EU are: export tariffs on US LNG, loosing arms exports for Ukraine. This the real EU delicate balancing act.
Comment by moi2388 1 day ago
After that it has practically completely dried up. Ukraine and the EU are already producing themselves.
This is a big long term loss to the US.
Also if US makes their LNG unaffordable the EU will simply switch to countries like India.
Who exactly is the US going to still sell to?
Comment by leonidasrup 14 hours ago
Comment by moi2388 11 hours ago
So it’s a nice circumvention for the EU if they were to require one.
Comment by tialaramex 1 day ago
This would make some sense under normal circumstances. However the Trump administration isn't "retaliating" except in the same sense you saw ICE "retaliating" by murdering unarmed protesters.
Violent bullies respect strength to the extent they respect anything at all.
Comment by lardosaurusrex 1 day ago
They know it's going to hurt and they can't just order their own country -- or in the case of the EU; countries -- to fully decouple and so they're using the pain to encourage the creation and growth of alternatives.
Nobody says it isn't painful or that it isn't going to suck but it's viewed as inevitable rather than something to be avoided.
Comment by dlahoda 1 day ago
Comment by robin_reala 1 day ago
Comment by granzymes 1 day ago
Comment by maelito 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by warrenmiller 1 day ago
Comment by petcat 1 day ago
Comment by dmos62 1 day ago
Comment by ExoticPearTree 1 day ago
Comment by izacus 1 day ago
Comment by ExoticPearTree 1 day ago
And the AC is real, during the heatwave a few weeks back, the EC turned it off for the lower floors and kept it on the higher floor where the commissioners work. It was an article linked here on HN too.
Comment by Steve16384 1 day ago
And heat rises. :D
Comment by ExoticPearTree 18 hours ago
And yet, on that list it does not say the money comes from Google and the road outside my house is also not there.
You have to do better.
Comment by izacus 1 day ago
Comment by victorbjorklund 1 day ago
Comment by timpera 1 day ago
Comment by firesteelrain 1 day ago
It’s all sort of intertwined now.
Comment by cmiles8 1 day ago
Comment by riffraff 1 day ago
The goal of the regulation is to get the operators to comply, which they usually do after fines (EDIT: and litigations and whining, of course), because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
Comment by 20k 1 day ago
The goal should be to incentivise them to comply with the law as a whole, not to keep deliberately breaking different sections of the law to make profit above the level of fines
That's why people want the level of the fines to go up, to disincentivise the more broad lawbreaking
Comment by p-e-w 1 day ago
Comment by riffraff 20 hours ago
You don't get a higher fine every time you go very the speed limit or park in the wrong place.
You don't get a higher fine if you don't have a bus ticket.
This is not a felony. Perhaps it should be, but it's not.
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
Comment by Teever 1 day ago
The correct solution to this is to have fines scaled to the value of a company and an exponential doubling of fines for every re-offence that falls under the same category of crime with a cooling off period after a few years.
Comment by benoau 1 day ago
Comment by maccard 1 day ago
Comment by Teever 1 day ago
The first fine should sting and the second should be damaging to a company and the third should be crippling.
The EU has been fining Google for years to no avail.
Comment by HatchedLake721 1 day ago
Me after a quick research:
2017: €2.42 billion fine for favoring its own comparison shopping service.
Results: huge changes to Google's shopping service.
2018: €4 billion fine over Android-related practices.
Results: Google Play separately from Google Search and Chrome, and manufacturers gained more flexibility over preinstalled apps.
Comment by bornfreddy 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by Teever 1 day ago
Comment by Teever 1 day ago
What we need to see is that exponential function. Everyone here should have at least the intuition from Moore's Law and COVID that exponential growth is either your best friend or your worst enemy depending on if it's working for you.
The next fine should've been 8B, and the one after that 16... The regression back down to 1B is counter productive to the goal of inducing compliance and reducing the offender's ability to continue to offend by taking away their resources to do so.
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
The big corporations don't really fix their evil behaviour. That's why fines keep on re-emerging.
> because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
See above. If the fines were to work, it would not become a repeating issue.
I think mandatory jailtimes are the only solution. When the CEOs are suddenly for 10 years in a small room, slowly they will begin to stop their mafia-strategy.
Comment by sajithdilshan 1 day ago
Comment by dinfinity 1 day ago
Comment by OsrsNeedsf2P 1 day ago
Comment by hirako2000 1 day ago
I've never received a dollar from the EU as a victim. If the fines are moderate and big co keeps paying that's steady revenue for the EU institutions.
Comment by ben_w 1 day ago
These companies do, in fact, change behaviour in response to such actions; they may hire lawyers to find and exploit as many loopholes as they can, but they do ultimately comply. Even X ultimately complied in response to Brazil, and the EU is a much more important market for Google than Brazil ever was for X.
(Why would you expect to get dollars from an EU settlement?)
Comment by ivan_gammel 1 day ago
Comment by mosura 1 day ago
It is almost entirely unsurprising that the EU tech industry is such a disaster area when people say things like this as if they are a good thing.
Comment by brazukadev 1 day ago
Comment by mosura 1 day ago
As is the “letting their companies do whatever they want everywhere (as they currently do) is the better "strategy"” when this wasn’t said or even implied anywhere.
It is amazing how HN has descended into arguing against people making points by saying they are someone else and saying something completely different.
Comment by sam_lowry_ 1 day ago
Comment by mosura 1 day ago
The point of the EU subsidies is, surely, not to enrich a few people with the right connections but to stimulate a productive ecosystem that supports well paid skilled employment, right? Right?
Comment by ivan_gammel 14 hours ago
Honestly, I don’t know what are you talking about. Tech industry in Europe is far from being dead. Not least because for many American companies Europe as market is dead.
Comment by clear-octopus 1 day ago
Comment by sajithdilshan 1 day ago
Comment by close04 1 day ago
How long have you been working inside the behemoth? Can you tell us more about the inner workings, where the money goes, how much, etc?
Comment by stavros 1 day ago
Comment by oblio 1 day ago
There's this standard assumption that HN users are well educated.
Budgets don't work like that. It's not like the US federal government collects taxes and then deposits bags of gold coins on people's doorsteps.
Taxes, fines, etc are all collected and then they mostly go to a general, undifferentiated budget which is then divided by the various ministries (departments, whatever).
So yes, if you're a EU citizen you did get the money back. As roads, hospitals, research funding, etc.
Comment by cromka 1 day ago
This isn't a class action.
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
Comment by benoau 1 day ago
Comment by mnicky 1 day ago
Comment by dlahoda 1 day ago
Comment by throw101010 1 day ago
EU competition law is not framed around valuing Europeans more than others, it is framed around protecting competition and market functioning inside the EU.
No need to moralize it and pretend anyone is using this "value" European humans more than other humans.
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
Comment by ben_w 1 day ago
Why not 20% (30%), given that's the share of world GDP (PPP) due to the EU?
Why revenue rather than profit?
The answer is: big round number that's roughly justifiable as a big stick for, and I want to emphasise this, a punishment to make sure they don't break the rules.
Comment by account42 1 day ago
Comment by benoau 1 day ago
The reasoning is very simple just "carry a big stick", multinational companies need to fear the fines to want compliance.
Comment by dlahoda 1 day ago
Comment by Tade0 1 day ago
Corporations reliably break the law, the EU reliably enforces it.
I'm actually happy that this is the path the EU went, as there's a financial incentive to keep laws which benefit consumers.
Comment by spwa4 1 day ago
https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-417489...
€4.536bn on €86.6bn, or about 5% (which is one third of the amount Ireland promised in an international treaty they would charge ...)
Comment by jchw 1 day ago
Comment by Imustaskforhelp 1 day ago
[0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/meta-says-it-s-staring-...
Comment by baq 1 day ago
...but this is a private(ish) business, it doesn't have a printer in the back yard, a billion is a lot no matter how you look at it, especially if they're now facing a tough choice between cannibalizing their results with AI summaries or having AI competitors eating their lunch.
Comment by petre 1 day ago
Comment by vrganj 1 day ago
These 890M are a first warning. Now Google has some time to react, but if they don't implement what is required of them, another, higher, fine will be issued.
20% of global revenue is not just cost of doing business, to any business.
Comment by atoav 1 day ago
Comment by stodor89 1 day ago
Don't blame Google for pushing boundaries. That's what people (and corpos) do in any competitive activity. Do blame our politicians for being incompetent and ill-meaning.
Comment by ben_w 1 day ago
(Not those exact numbers, but the same point).
Comment by suslik 1 day ago
Comment by throwway120385 1 day ago
Comment by suslik 1 day ago
Comment by ben_w 1 day ago
Comment by suslik 1 day ago
Comment by account42 1 day ago
Comment by dlahoda 1 day ago
Comment by Timon3 1 day ago
So no, Google shouldn't get a pass for pushing boundaries. Thinking like this only protects the capital class and the politicians responsible for this mess.
Comment by stodor89 1 day ago
My point is, we can't expect them to behave. And if they promise to, that promise isn't worth much.
Comment by saltysalt 1 day ago
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
Comment by saltysalt 1 day ago
Comment by 28304283409234 16 hours ago
Comment by jdw64 1 day ago
Reading about it, both points seem valid to me.
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
Comment by benoau 1 day ago
Comment by cadamsdotcom 1 day ago
Comment by ChrisArchitect 1 day ago
Comment by ExoticPearTree 1 day ago
Comment by rando1234 1 day ago
Comment by DivingForGold 1 day ago
Comment by ben_w 1 day ago
So go ahead, make the stuff you buy from us 10x more expensive with you (not us) paying the difference to your government, then be surprised by how many of your factories can't run because they can't afford stuff they need that only we make.
Or, shock, substitute us with China.
But either way, you're hitting yourself and calling the pain a sign of victory.
Comment by dathinab 1 day ago
A fundamental rule for capitalism to work well long term is that oligopoly and similar should not exist and must be rained in or outright split up if they exist. If that rule isn't followed capitalism turns from a tool which can support democracy to one which will sooner or later tear it apart. It's basically the economic version of the number one rule of democracy: "never concentrate too much power into two few people".
This also isn't just some theoretical thing, if you look through history having too much money/power in to few entities(1) always sooner or later lead to suffering of people, injustice and collapse.
Lastly it's worth noting that historically companies often do challenge such fines and managed to cut them down by quite a bit, that is iff they actually started being compliant by then. Sadly the end result is often still that, the economically benefit of huge companies systematic breaking the law, outweighs their penalties. I mean they often do calculate the most likely level of penalties into their cost-benefit analysis.
(1): Through it should be noted that this is about effective power, not theoretic power. It isn't rare through history to have people which theoretically are autocrats with absolute power, but practically the power is spread quite widely and in turn them having a brain fart, mental decline, megalomaniac, irrational hate against some groups of people etc. didn't lead directly to atrocities being committed.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by Muromec 1 day ago
Comment by dathinab 1 day ago
> Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit
this neither implies free markets nor that "rich people control everything" but it more like a large category of economical systems we haven't always given distinct names
but common reasoning why capitalism and democracy work well together are based on a form of capitalism which fundamental requires fair and free markets.
This are the forms of capitalism the US had been fighting for in the past, the forms of capitalism most EU countries have committed to, but definitely not the form of capitalism we have in the US today.
The forms of capitalism which endanger instead of complement democracy have IMHO no place in democratic countries and IMHO we should give this harmful sub-category of capitalism it's own name to be able to better fight it.
Anyway just because there are bad forms of capitalism doesn't mean there aren't also good forms. And when pushing for "fixing" capitalism you at least have some chance to reach people. When you instead push to "replace" capitalism you are pretty fast hitting a wall where people aren't even willing to entertain reasoning with you (which is probably why the right wing tries to re-lable most things they don't like as anti-capitalist, communist or socialist even when the arguments have nothing to do with any of that (well the term socialism has been redefine and appropriated so often it has lost any meaning in taken out of context, but that is a different topic).
Comment by inigyou 11 hours ago
Comment by sylware 1 day ago
1 - restore interop with noscript/basic HTML browsers, stop favoring your 'whatwg cartel' web engine.
2 - gmail: restore interop with self-hosted SMTP servers without DNS (filtering on the IPv[46] literal from email address, this is stronger than SPF).
And there is probably more to add.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
3 - stop writing comments only in english, stop favoring your 'anglosphere' linguistic bubble
Comment by dlahoda 1 day ago
Comment by sylware 15 hours ago
Here, Big Tech must interop with Small Tech. A common malicious behavior from Big Tech is to inflate by tons the required complexity and size of their 'tech' in order to make it out of reach by small competitors. This is one of the roles of market regulation. It seems they are now using 'security' (something which is only best-effort, it actually does not exist) to scare people to go to alternatives (how deep the rabbit hole goes here... mmmmh...)
In my EU country, we have a very good internet, thanks to _HARDCORE_ regulation which allowed small alternatives to be bootstrapped and to exist and grow. It is a bit different for gogol which is trying to create a 'very walled garden' like the "rotten fruit" company with this 101 malicious behavior on the long run: strong interop with 'Small Tech' at the beginning, slowly (~decade+) but surely this interop is broken to favor the 'Big Tech' from their cartel.
It is really complex: devil hides in the 'technical' details, it is case by case over some kind of continous spectrum. Here, it boiles down to the complexity/size of protocols, file formats with their stability in time: if you regulate here, "Small Tech" becomes a real-life alternative.
And don't be a fool at believing they are not talking to each other and play fair...
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
Mandatory jailtime - otherwise they just shrug it off.
Comment by 28304283409234 16 hours ago
Comment by zoobab 1 day ago
Comment by hunglee2 1 day ago
Comment by oaiey 1 day ago
Comment by flohofwoe 1 day ago
This is basically the equivalent of the weekly nuclear annihilation threat from the Moscow direction ;)
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning
Comment by hunglee2 1 day ago
Comment by yodsanklai 1 day ago
Does it though? Companies have to corrupt him in various ways to get his favors. Pichai won't get that for free.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by louthy 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by xorcist 1 day ago
Comment by tzs 1 day ago
Comment by nubg 1 day ago
Comment by flohofwoe 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
"Once you pay the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane."
Comment by mentalfist 1 day ago
Comment by yodsanklai 1 day ago
Comment by inemesitaffia 1 day ago
Comment by Hikikomori 1 day ago
Comment by inemesitaffia 1 day ago
There's no evidence of double tapping the school.
That requires live surveillance. Come back when you have video of that.
Comment by Hikikomori 1 day ago
Comment by inemesitaffia 1 day ago
One of the groups took over a church where refugees were hiding and burnt them alive in the building.
Comment by Hikikomori 14 hours ago
Comment by yodsanklai 1 day ago
Comment by krisroadruck 1 day ago
Comment by cleansy 1 day ago
Comment by thesmtsolver2 23 hours ago
EU does much more to protect its market compared to US.
EU was never a developing country like China. Most countries in EU benefited from centuries of exploitation of Asia, Africa and the Americas. They don't need protectionism.
It is immoral and ugly.
Comment by amazingamazing 1 day ago
Comment by jacekm 1 day ago
Comment by sholladay 1 day ago
Also, here in the U.S., we’ve managed to screw up so badly on data privacy and basic rights that the EU has been systematically replacing their entire tech stack with sovereign components.
Comment by amazingamazing 1 day ago
Comment by Anoian 1 day ago
Comment by r_lee 1 day ago
Comment by sunaookami 1 day ago
Comment by actionfromafar 1 day ago
Comment by Steve16384 1 day ago
Comment by flohofwoe 1 day ago
Comment by throw-the-towel 1 day ago
Comment by flohofwoe 1 day ago
Comment by Muromec 1 day ago
Comment by mastermage 1 day ago
Comment by amazingamazing 1 day ago
Comment by trusche 1 day ago
Comment by amazingamazing 1 day ago
Comment by gear54rus 1 day ago
Comment by kotaKat 1 day ago
Comment by transcriptase 1 day ago
Comment by croes 1 day ago
Comment by lnsru 1 day ago
There is Wikipedia article about this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Resilience_Act
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
Comment by lnsru 1 day ago
No big deal for corporations though. Buddy’s workplace hired new compliance department for this topic with 30 persons. That’s competition european way.
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
Comment by lnsru 1 day ago
Comment by flohofwoe 1 day ago
Sounds like a perfect job for AI tbh ;)
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
I don't believe that is true. Cars do break but they have to meet safety standards. That doesn't make them perfect but it's much better than not having them. You can't make perfect safety standards in an ever changing world but you can define minimum standards.
I understand that documentation is a pain in the butt, but it's necessary to have some oversight. It's part of the enforcement. Everyone has to do it so we know the documentation should exist. That means we can fine companies that don't do it. If you mad the documentation and lied on it and it comes out you will probably fined even more. It's a deterrent and a way to enforce the rules.
Comment by WarmWash 1 day ago
"I would rather only buy from megacorporations than small players"
Comment by logicchains 1 day ago
Comment by BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago
I think losing the companies that don't have security as a main priority isn't too bad. I assume that the EU will create import restrictions if there is a meaningful shift to avoid EU rules.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by Muromec 1 day ago
Comment by GJim 1 day ago
See also, the GDPR killing startups that attempt to invade our privacy and exploit personal data without permission.
Comment by logicchains 1 day ago
Comment by edb_123 1 day ago
Comment by GJim 1 day ago
Comment by dathinab 1 day ago
and some other part seem to have "I have suffered so you must suffer too" mentality
and in generally there seem to be an increasing lack of basic human empathy ... which is very worrisome
Comment by GJim 1 day ago