←back to thread

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

(ec.europa.eu)
398 points ChrisArchitect | 7 comments | 05 Sep 25 16:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
impossiblefork ◴[05 Sep 25 19:18 UTC] No.45142502[source]▶
I don't think this decision 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.

You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.

replies(6): >>45142626 #>>45142772 #>>45142808 #>>45142895 #>>45142912 #>>45143223 #
1. Y-bar ◴[05 Sep 25 19:53 UTC] No.45142895[source]▶
What do you say when Arbetsmiljöverket (labour regulation), Skatteverket (IRS), Ekobrottsmyndigheten (monterary crimes) take enforcement actions in Sweden and hand out decisions for fines and such?

The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.

replies(1): >>45143472 #
2. impossiblefork ◴[05 Sep 25 20:54 UTC] No.45143472[source]▶
That's fine. They aren't politically appointed and in the end their decisions are checked by the courts.

The EU commission on the other hand actually has power.

As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.

replies(1): >>45143980 #
3. Y-bar ◴[05 Sep 25 21:42 UTC] No.45143980[source]▶
The appointment of directors of these Swedish agencies is effectively identical to the appointment to the commission.
replies(1): >>45144238 #
4. impossiblefork ◴[05 Sep 25 22:09 UTC] No.45144238{3}[source]▶
The director of arbetsmiljöverket does not intervene in individual cases either, and in the end the law is what matters.

>Ingen myndighet, inte heller riksdagen eller en kommuns beslutande organ, får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag.

No authority [...] may decide how an administrative authority is to decide in a case involving use of authority against an individual[...]

Furthermore, the commission is not like a directors of an agency. They are politicians. I would compare them to government ministers, who are appointed in a similar way.

replies(1): >>45144322 #
5. Y-bar ◴[05 Sep 25 22:19 UTC] No.45144322{4}[source]▶
Oh man, I’m confused why you keep arguing like the 12th chapter of the Swedish Regeringsform does not exist. What you write is not what is reality in law or reality in effect in Sweden.
replies(1): >>45148361 #
6. impossiblefork ◴[06 Sep 25 11:31 UTC] No.45148361{5}[source]▶
I'm literally arguing based on things in the 12th chapter, so I don't understand your remark.
replies(1): >>45148701 #
7. Y-bar ◴[06 Sep 25 12:29 UTC] No.45148701{6}[source]▶
The 12th chapter designates the Genetaldirektörs, Ambassadors, Rikspolischefen, and other government leaders of the executive branch (ie Swedens equivalent of the Commission) as political roles, whose hiring is done by the Regering and the Prime Minister. Regeringsformen also allows the executive branch and their leader to interpret and execute laws. It also allows the executive branches to issue guidance on their interpretation of the law.

You seem to be under the impression that the executive branch in Sweden has no political rulemaking powers when it in fact has been given such according to constitution law.