5 ms·

Google fined in India for search bias

87 points by Santosh83 9y ago

dukes_haven 9y ago
That's basically like 2 cents for Google, I don't think that they are going to change biasing search results any time soon
- malikNF 9y ago
  Yes its pocket money for google, but also it said the following >>The commission ordered Google not to impose restrictive clauses with immediate effect in these agreements. plus, I am guessing this will encourage more people/companies to pursue legal action against google if they don't do anything about this.
- mgnn 9y ago
  If my reading is correct, the violations were only for a period in 2009-2010. Whatever change of behaviour this ruling might have induced, it had happened a long time ago.
tpaschalis 9y ago
One important part for people that might not have read the article is the percentage-of-revenue nature of the fine, something that is also being used in the EU "for breaking EU Competition Law". (I don't know how cases like these are handled in the US). I think that such policies are more likely to make giant corporations think twice about abusing their market position. > "The penalty was calculated at the rate of 5 per cent of the average total revenue that Google [...] years of 2013, 2014 and 2015."
- sundarurfriend 9y ago
  Yeah, I too like that aspect of the fine. And while the particular amount is tiny considering the whole of Google, it is apparently 5% of what Google earned in those years from its "Indian operations" - and that revenue drop and profit/loss implications will matter in internal decisions, and will be significant when the profitability of this arm of operations is considered internally. And that will in turn have direct and indirect implications for internal management and decision-making. Nothing dramatic of course, given they can still get away with a lot, but this is not a trivial fine or ruling like many seem to be assuming.
venganesh 9y ago
if risk << reward { attack; } Seems like Google would continue to attack startup ecosystem in India.
ipsum2 9y ago
It's very absurd that Google is being fined for what it puts on its own website. > The DG also recorded that Google was not required to pay any monetary consideration for its house ads which gave it an additional competitive edge. Yes, it doesn't make sense to give money to yourself. > Google shows two types of commercial units in India: shopping units which display ads for product offers of merchants; and flight units which identify flight offers for a given destination. It shows ads to make money to pay for costs. > Third, the search intermediation agreements prevented publishers from using search services of competing search engines. I have no idea what this means. Any ideas?
- sundarurfriend 9y ago
  You should take some time to educate yourself before calling things "very absurd" and making comments that are poorly informed and barely make sense. This is how anti-monopoly laws work; Google can be fined for what it puts on "its own website" much like Microsoft was fined for bundling Internet Explorer with "its own OS" - your actual product or service must be distinct from your advertising and marketing, because different rules and regulations apply to them. > The investigation showed that Google integrates or blends its own specialised/vertical search services in its online general web search services in the form of "universal results and commercial units" using mechanisms that do not apply in an equivalent manner to non-Google websites or web content. And when corporations start blurring that line because they think they can get away with it, these sort of checks and boundaries are necessary to minimise that abuse of power. > It shows ads to make money to pay for costs. No it did not, and that's the bloody point: these are not distinguished as ads, but as "enhanced features" that just happen to place Google's offerings unfairly above the others. This is misuse of one part of its business - that's supposed to be a fair and neutral search engine - and going beyond simply tweaking internal algorithms (which they possibly still do) to blatantly favor their own business. (And in case someone is thinking "of course they want to make money", I'll say "and of course they get slapped down by the legal system as they well deserve to, because we want more competition and better services"). > the search intermediation agreements prevented publishers from using search services of competing search engines This by the way basically refers to agreements about using Google's search services for site-level searches and possibly internal searches - and depending on details, Google was apparently saying "if you use our search services in one part of your business, then by this agreement you are not allowed to use any other search service for another part of your business or service". And there are specific regulations concerning such exclusionary agreements from market-dominant players. Two articles with a bit more (and a bit better organized) information: https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/2018/02/08/google-guilty-of-anti-competitive-conduct-says-competition-regulator https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/2018/02/08/goo... and https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Business/20180208/3272109.html https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Business/20180208...
djJDKLjls 9y ago
good but the fine is very low
outside1234 9y ago
A whole $21M? I am sure they are making changes immediately.

87 points by Santosh83 9y ago

That's basically like 2 cents for Google, I don't think that they are going to change biasing search results any time soon

malikNF 9y ago
Yes its pocket money for google, but also it said the following >>The commission ordered Google not to impose restrictive clauses with immediate effect in these agreements. plus, I am guessing this will encourage more people/companies to pursue legal action against google if they don't do anything about this.
mgnn 9y ago
If my reading is correct, the violations were only for a period in 2009-2010. Whatever change of behaviour this ruling might have induced, it had happened a long time ago.

tpaschalis 9y ago

One important part for people that might not have read the article is the percentage-of-revenue nature of the fine, something that is also being used in the EU "for breaking EU Competition Law". (I don't know how cases like these are handled in the US). I think that such policies are more likely to make giant corporations think twice about abusing their market position. > "The penalty was calculated at the rate of 5 per cent of the average total revenue that Google [...] years of 2013, 2014 and 2015."

sundarurfriend 9y ago
Yeah, I too like that aspect of the fine. And while the particular amount is tiny considering the whole of Google, it is apparently 5% of what Google earned in those years from its "Indian operations" - and that revenue drop and profit/loss implications will matter in internal decisions, and will be significant when the profitability of this arm of operations is considered internally. And that will in turn have direct and indirect implications for internal management and decision-making. Nothing dramatic of course, given they can still get away with a lot, but this is not a trivial fine or ruling like many seem to be assuming.

venganesh 9y ago

if risk << reward { attack; } Seems like Google would continue to attack startup ecosystem in India.

ipsum2 9y ago

It's very absurd that Google is being fined for what it puts on its own website. > The DG also recorded that Google was not required to pay any monetary consideration for its house ads which gave it an additional competitive edge. Yes, it doesn't make sense to give money to yourself. > Google shows two types of commercial units in India: shopping units which display ads for product offers of merchants; and flight units which identify flight offers for a given destination. It shows ads to make money to pay for costs. > Third, the search intermediation agreements prevented publishers from using search services of competing search engines. I have no idea what this means. Any ideas?

sundarurfriend 9y ago
You should take some time to educate yourself before calling things "very absurd" and making comments that are poorly informed and barely make sense. This is how anti-monopoly laws work; Google can be fined for what it puts on "its own website" much like Microsoft was fined for bundling Internet Explorer with "its own OS" - your actual product or service must be distinct from your advertising and marketing, because different rules and regulations apply to them. > The investigation showed that Google integrates or blends its own specialised/vertical search services in its online general web search services in the form of "universal results and commercial units" using mechanisms that do not apply in an equivalent manner to non-Google websites or web content. And when corporations start blurring that line because they think they can get away with it, these sort of checks and boundaries are necessary to minimise that abuse of power. > It shows ads to make money to pay for costs. No it did not, and that's the bloody point: these are not distinguished as ads, but as "enhanced features" that just happen to place Google's offerings unfairly above the others. This is misuse of one part of its business - that's supposed to be a fair and neutral search engine - and going beyond simply tweaking internal algorithms (which they possibly still do) to blatantly favor their own business. (And in case someone is thinking "of course they want to make money", I'll say "and of course they get slapped down by the legal system as they well deserve to, because we want more competition and better services"). > the search intermediation agreements prevented publishers from using search services of competing search engines This by the way basically refers to agreements about using Google's search services for site-level searches and possibly internal searches - and depending on details, Google was apparently saying "if you use our search services in one part of your business, then by this agreement you are not allowed to use any other search service for another part of your business or service". And there are specific regulations concerning such exclusionary agreements from market-dominant players. Two articles with a bit more (and a bit better organized) information: https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/2018/02/08/google-guilty-of-anti-competitive-conduct-says-competition-regulator https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/2018/02/08/goo... and https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Business/20180208/3272109.html https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Business/20180208...

djJDKLjls 9y ago

good but the fine is very low

outside1234 9y ago

A whole $21M? I am sure they are making changes immediately.