...maybe in theory. Fines are, largely calibrated one way or another. It's not marked to gross revenue... but it is usually marked to the infraction. In the EU

...maybe in theory. Fines are, largely calibrated one way or another. It's not marked to gross revenue... but it is usually marked to the infraction. In the EU-Adwords case, the $2bn fine was relative to the size of adwords search partners' EU market share. In this Italian case (I assume) the fine is scaled to the size of the monopolised sector... Italian apps or whatnot. This is why I called it a "violation-fine paradigm." Courts can't arbitrarily fine companies "enough to make it hurt." It has to relate to laws, specific infractions. Laws have to be general. Etc. My point is that the infraction itself is not the problem. It's a sign of the problem, a symptom... the problem is monopoly. There's no version of adwords partner agreement (including the post-fine version) that isn't still a problem, even if it doesn't contain abuse of power clauses. The problem is that the only meaningful market for search ads is Google's. Similar issue for Amazon marketplace. There's no version of Amazon marketplace policies where amazon retail competes on a level playing field... they own the field. You fine a company for doing something wrong. Google do things wrong, from time to time... but the main problem is what Google is, not what they do. That's derivative.