Inal either but the way the court phrases it in the press release is that google negociated a free use licence with everyone, regardless of their financial situ

Inal either but the way the court phrases it in the press release is that google negociated a free use licence with everyone, regardless of their financial situations, using their dominant position on the market to "force" everyone. A way of seeing this is that it might be fine for the big players for national and international news (Le monde, Le figaro ...) , but probably has a much bigger impact on small news outlet, because if they dont agree they are at a disadvatage obviously, so they cannot afford to say no, but at the same time they might already be in a difficult financial position, and that revenu might have helped. The key part is that google had no real justification according to the court to treat everyone the same way, and that consitutes discrimination. It seems a bit weird to me too but you could make a parallel to a school that has a set meal price for every student, regardless of parent income.This would obviously be discriminating towards the poorer students. Now whether google is a public service the way school lunches are is up for debate but i think it basically comes down to equality vs equity