European Commission fines Google €2.95B over abusive ad tech practices

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.

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.

> 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.

They’re in a panic. Euro boomers destroyed the place after their forefathers died to build it and keep it alive.

They get the fine money. Either to the EU (relieves tax burden on member states) or directly to member states depending on the situation.

> take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene

Because American megacorps are killing it with their monopolistic actions?

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.

>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?

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.

Maybe it was a real EU fault at that time, but now the monopolies definitely affect the market, as proven by the court.

> 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.

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.

Almost all the most famous anti-trust cases in America like against Microsoft

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.

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.

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.

> And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene.

What are you implying? That letting foreign companies break laws would help the tech scene?

Or that the attention is so limited that any attempt of enforcing law necessarily means there is less attention to fostering the tech industry?

(Neither of the above interpretations make any sense)

> Microsoft didn't even pay any money, they had to change how they operated their business in the US.

They had to do that, or else what? Some form of cruel and unusual punishment that doesn’t involve fines?

Isn’t this process about compliance with laws too? They have had time to follow the laws but chosen not to.

I love these takes.

You don't like outsiders poisoning your wells? You should poison it yourself instead!

How do you know that?

I’ve lived there, among many other places. It’s pretty obvious in dozens of ways when you see it up close.

East Asia (currently) has a completely different mindset, with tradeoffs, which is why it has completely replaced Silicon Valley for actual Silicon. And frankly, is starting to do the same for software.

>No amount of money will compensate for the fact that big corporations rule EU just like they rule any other place on this planet.

That seems hard to quantify. But if it were true, why would the EU let large corporations operate in the EU?

I suppose the answer would be they are only damaging some people but other value them? And EU is catering more to those other stakeholders?

Personally I dont think large corporations have caused such incalculable harm to society but if they have, why even have them?

Americans work 500 hours a year more than their German counterparts. 300 more than the EU average.

Americans are working 14.5 months a year while Europeans are working 12!

Do you think that the adtech industry "scene" is somehow exclusive to the USA? Antitrust enforcement doesn't appear out of thin air just to throw a spanner in the works just for the hell of it, it's because the local competition complained. You may not agree with it but they are "fostering" them as you wish.

These numbers would be admirable if they had something to show for it, instead: illiteracy below level 1 28% [0]; life expectancy 79.5 years (as opposed to - for example Italy 83.9 [1]; rank 13 when it comes to cost of living [2]... I could go on with health etc. So, what exactly do you get out of all that additional labour?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_State... [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expe... [2]https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php

I think you’re just reinforcing the point?

The current output is affected by the illegal monopolies, as I already explained.

I don’t think you read their comment - they were referring to Asia?

How are US monopolistic practices hurting Europe while helping Asia?

> Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it.

> If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.

Talk about fallacy.

It would be better if US started dividing these giants thereby allowing other companies to enter the market.

And before you say something on AI - your companies don't follow your laws either - IP laws - should we remove these? I would advocate that yes, we should - they are nothing more than nuisance (with all the suing costs) in modern times anyway.

We had a tech scene before 2010s - you just can not outcompete these US state-sanctioned companies when they don't follow the law and US cries every time when sane control is applied. And then there is China to add to that with Temu. Add to that Amazon and fact that there is more than one digital market based in central Europe should be impossible - but they do exist.

And yes we DO have conditions and 'sunlight'.

Look at payment for example:

Google - late 2010s Apple - middle 2010s Central European payment systems - 2000s

Some countries reached banking transfer unification - i.e one system to payment transfer with every bank in middle 2010s IN BANKING SYSTEM ITSELF - so as long you have bank account you don't have to have any other transfer system - your bank does it for you - instant.

Yeah so why exactly we have even any competition with Google and Apple? Ah yeah google pushes it's solution with 'card number' (which if you live in central Europe only time you will use is with US companies) to android.

I still remember culture shock card number gave some people. When my family member was asked by Netflix to give card number he thought it was fraud - because NO ONE ever did that. It took enormous amount of persuasion (and call to the bank) that yes - card number is valid system. He asked me what blocks netflix from slurping all the money if he cannot see the bank website. He solved problem with (I kid you not) separate banking account where he transferred money before giving that account card number.

And before you have misconception - he was poor but did somewhat (more than most I would say) understand IT - he just did not have trust for his 1000$ pension to not be misused by Netflix employees.

More? How about Comparison shopping website?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-court-upholds-googles-...

Do you see pattern?

The issue is not that EU cannot make companies - it is that EU companies cannot survive in hostile US market that confuses capitalism with company owned oligarchy.

The thing about EU companies is that they are much more localised - after all they were historically created with country language in mind, not English, some today still don't exist on English web, so you will have trouble to even know about them. Most of them to this day only work in the same country.

American companies have 380M market + L2 + L3. They rarely limit themselves to country. EU companies have at best something in range 100M - but realistically if we talk about any other country this falls sharply to ten/s of millions of users.

You already have structural advantage.

US proved that cannot regulate and dismantle its molochs, your choice, but don't come to cry when EU looses patience.

Don't expect that if you try to build & hold monopolies in US because that makes US market "bigger" other countries will not punish you - it's unreasonable.

EU cannot force US company to dissolve or sell parts (it would be meaningless) - it can only fine it until it will have to sell parts.

If US did exercise it's antitrust laws we wouldn't be here.

I won't talk about the merits of huge fines being an approach to solving competition, but from the inside I can see a few ways that the EU pale:

1. While the EU operates as a body for rule setting, the individual members are still highly autonomous in a way that doesn't compare to the types of collaboration that's possible across states in the USA. This is worsened by language divisi ons.

2. Internally each country is trying to foster their country as the place to be to launch a "start up", but that fragmentation is almost certainly slowing down the formation of a European equivalent to silicon valley.

3. There isn't a competitive investment funnel to what's available in the USA and the USA benefits from "network effect" style advantages purely from being further down the road. So if someone in the EU has a good start-up concept, chances are they'll try to make it work with the big guns in the USA, or cash it out to a US entity.

4. The EU is incredibly shortsighted in allowing the sale of important tech companies to foreign entities (primarily US-based entities). Many of the bigger advancements of today started in Europe.

5. Similar to points 3+4, companies in the USA are often able to build more value with the IP they develop or acquire (on account of numerous factors including some inconvenient ones). So even when a EU start up has a good product it may not necessarily be as successful due to those factors.

6. The EU tends to write ambiguous legislation that is open to interpretation and at worst: intentionally vague. While some believe this is just trap setting for collecting fines, the consequence of vague rules is a loss of appetite to develop in that market. English speaking markets tend to have much more specific legislation and their governments are available to offer specific guidance. This is something that the EU lacks and a frequent complaint from the likes of Google et. al.

They probably aren't hurting Asia as much?

No, working 500 hours a week is unsustainable and likely doesn't lead to better overall outcomes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45149049#45151336

Are you for real/?

1) 500 hours a week isn’t just unsustainable, it’s impossible? There are only 168 hours in a week. I’m assuming you mean 50.

2) You’re just agreeing with the point again. Europe cares more about being comfortable. The US cares more about making money and being competitive (well, used to until recently anyway). People do all sorts of unsustainable things for money, all the time.

So what point do you think you’re making?

> Europe cares more about being comfortable. The US cares more about making money and being competitive

I think that you can't be competitive long-term without being comfortable.

If you think Asia is comfortable, I have news for you. But I guess it depends on ‘long term’.

By Asian standards, US working conditions are heaven.

EU isn’t particularly competitive even in the short term, but they are certainly comfortable. I guess we come back in a couple hundred years and see?

> I guess we come back in a couple hundred years and see?

No need to wait so long: The US is already failing.

Life expectancy numbers are not reliable. Government welfare systems for the old are younger than the people who are in their 80s. When they were introduced, a lot of people lied about their age so that they could retire earlier and get more juicy benefit money.

And Asia?