29 ms·

Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

614 points by april_22 4y ago

caldarons 4y ago
While I am in favour of efforts like the GDPR to protect users data, I wonder if all this anti-bigtech sentiment is actually justified and where it will eventually lead to
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  I expect some kind of: - common carrier status for “platforms” - PII laws, broadly
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    For your first point, that’s more or less what the Digital Market Act is and it was adopted in July. They call “platforms” “gatekeepers” but you got the idea of it. It should become enforceable by Q3 2023.
- metadat 4y ago
  Hopefully it can actually entice Google into changing it's behavior. The US fines are so small they are a joke, a light tax on doing business.
- rvz 4y ago
  It is a long time coming and still a long way to go and the surveillance big tech giants should pay a high price for abusing and violating the privacy of hundreds of millions of users. It's a shame that this fine is too generous to Google and it won't scare them. It should be much larger than that and should be in the multi-billions of dollars.
  - metadat 4y ago
    - rvz 4y ago
      > What? Did GPT3 write the parent comment? No. Why do you think that is? > This is a multi-billion dollar fine, a $4.1B fine. As it should be the standard and nothing less than that. Even so, this one is a 'generous' multi-billion dollar fine that won't scare them. I am saying it needs to be much higher than that. GPT-3 cannot explain itself or its own comments, can it?
      - metadat 4y ago
        Losing 5% of Google's annual profits will absolutely scare the shit out of them. Consider how much this harms their ability to keep reinvesting the profits into growing the business. A 5% loss is likely sufficient to get them to stop for a moment and rethink their strategy so the punishment won't recur. > No. Why do you think that is? Because you lament the lack of a multi-billion dollar fine when the title states that it's a $4B fine. This comes off as nonsensical and disconnected from reality, in a way that triggered "¯\_(ツ)_/¯, maybe it's GPT3". With that said, I meant it as a joke, not a serious accusation. The likely explanation here is this comes down to the common case of human confusion. As a tangential aside: I can only conclude that due to the curse of knowledge, we collectively are overly paranoid about bot commenters on HN. I was just accused of being a bot just two or three days ago. Cheers and take care.
        rvz 4y ago
        > Losing 5% of Google's annual profits will absolutely scare the shit out of them. No it won't. We all know that this won't be the last of such violations from these big tech companies like Google which the EU is disputing and especially when Facebook paid a similar fine to the FTC years ago and is once again still violating the privacy of its users. So it is clear that they still wouldn't change even if the fine is as high as that. The fact is, they are not scared of these fines. Setting them in the multi-billion dollars should be the standard and the minimum and continuous violations warrant a much higher significant fine than this generous discounted fine which Google knows it can easily afford to do it again. For them, the violations is worth it and pays more than these so-called generous 'fines'. > Because you lament the lack of a multi-billion dollar fine when the title states that it's a $4B fine. This comes off as nonsensical and disconnected from reality, in a way that triggered "¯\_(ツ)_/¯, maybe it's GPT3". Except I already said that 'this' fine "needs to be much larger" and disagreed with the EU's 'generous' fine. I'm talking fines of over $10B dollars, which that still qualifies as 'multi-billions of dollars' and 'much larger' than the EU's small fine. I made myself perfectly clear on my whole point. So my comment is hardly 'GPT-3 bot' generated.
- Someone 4y ago
  If you’re in favor of efforts like the GDPR, why do you call this anti-bigtech sentiment? It’s pro-privacy sentiment. The GDPR applies to smalltech, too, and smalltech gets fined. For example, an individual got fined €600 about two months ago for pointing a video camera at a shared access road (https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-1397 https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-1397) You can find many more examples of small fines at https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/.
- athenot 4y ago
  With a small fine, it's just an annoying cost of doing business. With this ruling, there's a possibility it may actually change the risk/benefit assessment for companies that insist on doing whatever they want with user data. Maybe the lines of business which require promiscuous data sharing in order to be profitable will stop operating in the EU, and give rise to other business models. Whether these newer ones will be better or worse is not yet known, though the gamble in the EU is that it won't be worse.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    ... wasn't the case about Android app bundling, not user data?
- xani_ 4y ago
  Breaking the law that applies to is not a sentiment. The same law punished small companies too
- seydor 4y ago
  GDPR has been pro-big tech according to all the studies i have seen
  - esperent 4y ago
    Studies such as?
    - seydor 4y ago
      https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gdpr-effect-how-data-privacy-regulation-shaped-firm-performance-globally https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gdpr-effect-how-data-privacy-...
      - esperent 4y ago
        > In contrast, there is no evidence that large technology companies, such as Facebook and Google, experienced any reductions in either sales or profits. I'd say they might need to revise that. I think Google just saw a 4 billion euro reduction in profit.
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  [flagged]
- jlokier 4y ago
  The EU appeal the article is about has nothing at all to do with GDPR, user data, or privacy. It's about anticompetitive behaviour, i.e. antitrust. Antitrust is not particularly about tech companies, and it has been around a long time, since before modern computers. It's about misusing a position of market dominance to prevent a healthy competitive market from operating. Very large companies which are market-dominant face this problem, but they also have the resources to understand and handle the responsibility. They can either do so, or face fines and injunctions to make them do so. In severe cases they can be forced to break up dominant business units, such as happened with the breakup of AT&T in the USA some years ago. This is the same sort of thing as might have blocked nVidia from buying ARM, for example (until nVidia pulled out voluntarily). You can see how that has nothing to do with GDPR; it wasn't even in the EU.
drexlspivey 4y ago
That’s 1.45% of their annual revenue or 5.2% of their annual net profit.
- 988747 4y ago
  Yes, but it's also a threat of further fines in future if they don't stop their shenanigans.
- p-e-w 4y ago
  Which is essentially nothing. Imagine an individual, caught committing an illegal act of this magnitude for the third time, being fined 1.45% of their annual pre-tax salary, with no other consequences. Speeding tickets are costlier than this in many jurisdictions.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    If you were earning minimal wage in France, that would be about $1500 of fine for the equivalent of being caught commiting burglary for the 3rd time. Quite lucrative.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Factor in marginal utility of income, and it's even more lame. $1,500 means a lot more to someone making minimum wage than $4,000,000,000 does to Google.
  - tester756 4y ago
    >Which is essentially nothing. Holy shit. Is it some sign of being on HN too much? Sure, 1.45% is small, because % is shitty at representing the real value at this point at the end of the day it's fucking $4 000 000 000 It's year salary of 2200 well paid engineers That's industry-changing level of possibilities
    - Fiahil 4y ago
      closer to 8000 engineers, if you want to spend 500k/eng in salary alone (pre tax)
typon 4y ago
What amount would these EU fines have to be to make companies like Google and Facebook decide to exit the EU?
- bzxcvbn 4y ago
  This is never going to happen. It's just too big of a market.
  - woevdbz 4y ago
    It's also really not the outcome wanted by regulators. Everyone losing access to their email and information, YouTube, etc would create absolute chaos. Antitrust's job is to rein in profit, not destroy markets.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Never is a big word. Every time the EU levies fines like this it's effectively the market getting smaller. Also, there's degrees of exit. Google can exit the market and have zero presence in the EU whilst still sub-licensing tech to affiliates who pay for the privilege and resell their stuff, whilst dealing with all the local regulatory overheads. Plenty of firms use that sort of model.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  probably 15-20% of annual revenue its psychology, the board or ceo would react preemptively based on the idea that shareholders would react on their behalf shareholders (if they have voting power at all) would react for the same result at higher fine amounts than that
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Speculation - google would want to operate in the EU even at a loss: 1. Other search engines regularly appearing in news / on screens would remind the non-EU users about alternatives. 2. Lost traffic is lost information. Google still relies on knowing your behaviour to improve targeting. 3. Giving a whole region to other search engines would build up their financial standing and they could threaten Google in other regions in the future.
RandomWorker 4y ago
That increases the budget of the eu parliament with 2.2% on a yearly basis if paid out in one go. [1082B for 2014-2020, 4B/1082B*6y~2.2%] A loss of 4B is a decrease of revenue by 1.5% for google. [googles revenue was 256B in 2021 4/256~1.5%]
- markdestouches 4y ago
  Gives you a good perspective on how big google is and how much influence it potentially has.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  - nielsole 4y ago
    The budget is publicly available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022B0182&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
  - statusfailed 4y ago
    It mostly funds projects: > Approximately 94% of the EU budget funds programmes and projects both within member states and outside the EU. Less than 7% of the budget is used for administrative costs, and less than 3% is spent on EU civil servants' salaries. From [0], see also [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#Proportional_outgoings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#P... [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/organisation-and-rules/parliaments-budget https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/organisat...
    - origin_path 4y ago
      That's a tautology, the spending for every government will primarily go on "programmes and projects".
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
legitster 4y ago
So... What's the end result? Google has to charge for Android? Ask users their search preference?
- MikusR 4y ago
  They already do both of those things.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  I think this is about Google's Android certification, that allows manufacturers to ship Android with any google app. Some like the Play Store are basically required by users, but Google makes it a "get all or none" deal with a lot of other demands, which includes a google search widget.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    And Apple makes it so you can't even install apps outside their app store.
  - josefx 4y ago
    The deal isn't just "all or none" on a single phone, it is all or none over the entire inventory. If you sell an android phone with the play store you are no longer allowed to sell any android devices without it.
- izacus 4y ago
  Think of the situation with Chinese non-Google phones. You install your favorite app and it crashes on launch because the manufacturer messed with the system APIs. You run another app and it gets killed in the background, not receiving messages, because it's not on the list of your phone manufacturer partners. This is the situation with degoogled Android today - a huge compatibility mess.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Android should damn well ship with multiple app stores and multiple browsers, not just the GoogleApprovedTM app store where they ban anyone that looks at them wrong or thinks about blocking ads for more than 2 miliseconds. The exclusive app stores are both iOS and Android's greatest strengths and failings at the same time. Apple is arguably the far worse offender there too. If there was an alternative app store on iOS everyone would jump ship immediately. Imagine having crossplatform Steam/GoG Mobile stores for mobile games, etc.
p-e-w 4y ago
> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.
- esperent 4y ago
  The 3 strikes law is a US thing.
  - Normille 4y ago
    One of the few areas where I think the US has got it right. No-one should need more than 3 chances to stop being a dick.
    - trasz 4y ago
      This law results in people landing in jail for being poor: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-92042/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an...
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        This law results in people landing in jail for being habitual criminals. Being poor does not excuse criminal behavior.
        johnday 4y ago
        On the other hand, it appears that being rich does excuse criminal behavior - that is, if you hire a lot of people and get them to work in an office, and they commit crimes, the company gets fined and you don't go to prison (almost always).
mdrzn 4y ago
Yesss! EU is doing its job. I'm very happy every time they manage to give a slap on the wrist of these monopolies
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Wrist slaps are getting slightly stronger though!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
nottorp 4y ago
> Android has created more choice for everyone, not less Did it? I can choose between an iOS phone and an Android phone. I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options.
- amelius 4y ago
  If you're looking for a phone without ads/spyware, there is less choice because the EU sees Android as a similar product-category as iOS, thereby not identifying iOS as a monopoly (and Android as well, in its own category).
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I think you can argue that iOS/Android are a duopoly but I'm having a hard time seeing how iOS is a monopoly. Mobile OS: iOS Android (third options from Korea/China?) Hardware: iPhone Pixel Galaxy etc.
- Hamcha 4y ago
  Remember when Google refused to put Youtube on Windows Phone and when Microsoft made their own client, Google forced them to take it off their own store? Truly advocating for more choice. (Press at the time: https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube_app_round_3/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube... )
  - MarkusWandel 4y ago
    I had a Windows phone. The web version of Youtube worked fine. The Youtube app on Android is such a pain in the a* that sometimes I use the web version of Youtube on an Android tablet I have!
    - oblak 4y ago
      I have only used the android version once and what a pain that was. Clearly designed to only push content on the unsuspecting user and nothing else.
asadlionpk 4y ago
EU has decided to make a living out of fining the tech companies regularly.
- fabatka 4y ago
  Seems like it's still worth it for the tech companies, so I'd say it's a smart move.
- nebalee 4y ago
  And Google has decided to make a living out of breaking the law regularly.
- rr888 4y ago
  They continuously fined the banks until they're all nearly bankrupt. I guess tech is next now.
  - chmod775 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure bailouts/other support the banking sector received dwarf any fines they got for breaking the law. Banks going bankrupt is their own fault entirely. It's a "you had one job" kind of thing. If you want to find someone who is bad at managing your money and somehow breaks the law at the same time, a bank is apparently your best bet.
- lizardactivist 4y ago
  No, they're not fined regularly, only when they knowingly violate the law. And it's $4B after 4 years since the beginning of the investigation, a tiny increase to an already massive EU budget.
Normille 4y ago
Cool. The EU does have its [many!] faults. But they have a pretty good track record when it comes to consumer rights and consumer choice. Next up I'd like to see them do the same for the plethora of incompatible cordless power-tool systems out there as they did with insisting all mobile phones standardise on a USB connector.
- origin_path 4y ago
  "consumer choice ... insisting all mobile phones standardise" Although it's not the most important thing in the world, forcing standardization through law is the opposite of giving consumers choices.
  - Normille 4y ago
    That's a bit of a disingenuous comment though. I'd make a distinction between forcing standardisation on something like a power supply connector and forcing standardisation of actual products themselves. Standardisation of the former means we don't have to have half a dozen sockets on the wall because every domestic appliance manufacturer uses a different design plug... or have each of those sockets provide a different voltage because every appliance manufacturer opted for a different voltage. Standardisation of the latter leads to waiting 15 years for your Trabant.
  - jlokier 4y ago
    I don't think it qualifies as an "opposite", because enforced standards also create consumer choice sometimes. Case in point: The enforced standardising of mobile phone chargers has given consumers more choice of chargers to use with their phone. Thas proven quite useful in practice, e.g. when they leave the one that came with their device at home because they didn't expect to need it, or when the manufacturer's own brand is more expensive than an alternative, or if they have an old phone. I remember before USB-C standardised phone power, when visiting someone the chance that they had a power supply you could use was very low, because each one used a different connector. Even different models from the same brand. If you went travelling at short notice, you might have to buy a second charger just to keep you going for a few days. That's no longer required. Over the years you would end up with a box full of incompatible chargers, all e-waste. I think I have about 10. This particular consumer benefit didn't happen voluntarily among manufacturers (unlike, say, SIM cards), so forcing it has increased consumer choice in some useful respects. I prefer Apple's lightning connector (even though I don't have an iPhone), and other connectors better than USB-C would surely emerge if allowed to, so I do see benefits in not enforcing a standard like that too strictly. But the situation before USB-C mobile power was less consumer choice not more, for consumers of almost every phone.
Fiahil 4y ago
Maybe a boring question, but where do the money goes ? Can they use that to finance grants or RFPs for other projects ?
endisneigh 4y ago
It’s not clear to me what the EU, specifically, wants Google to do here from the article. Any insight?
- layer8 4y ago
  For example, not require that Chrome be preinstalled as the default browser on Android devices, and not require that a bundle of Google apps be preinstalled if any of them is preinstalled.
  - wara23arish 4y ago
    there is no way to delete safari from iphones
    - layer8 4y ago
      That’s Apple’s choice as the manufacturer of the device, while Google enforces conditions on Android device manufacturers. Apple would have the same problem if they would allow other companies to build iOS devices but force Safari to be the preinstalled as the default browser AND derive ad income from the use of Safari.
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        Microsoft chose to have desktop browser integration as the manufacturer of Windows. That didn't protect them from fines.
        layer8 4y ago
        That’s not the same situation, Microsoft didn’t manufacture the PCs.
    - hellisothers 4y ago
      I know it’s a nuance but Apple doesn’t license its OS to other manufacturers. So while Google dictates “if you use the Android OS you must bundle Chrome”, Apple isn’t dictating terms like that to another manufacturer.
dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
If the page fails to scroll on your screen, just disable JS (one click in uBlock Origin).
ncmncm 4y ago
Yet, still pocket change. It is commendable that EU does not allow miscreants to tie up fines in an endless legal maze.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  What % of global revenue or profit do you think an appropriate fine is?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    That is for courts, but it should be enough to produce correct behavior by eliminating incentive to violate. If the fine is too small, it becomes operating expense, as is usual in the US. Probably any fine should accompany (but not depend on results from) criminal charges for a company officer.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      So you believe Google made more than $4B with their Android licensing practices in the EU? I think that is unlikely, and I think it is likely we will see Google change the illegal licensing. I am more than happy to see a Google exec get charged for a crime if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed that crime.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        If it takes a $4B fine to get Google to behave, then a $4B fine is the right amount, regardless of revenue. Revenue hints at the fine that would get their attention. We charge people with a crime to see if their part in it can be proved. Second-guessing the court produces often bad results.
      - mqus 4y ago
        > I think that is unlikely, and I think it is likely we will see Google change the illegal licensing. According to another comment, they even already changed their practices in response, a few years ago
pmontra 4y ago
Google's reaction. > We are disappointed that the Court did not annul the decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and around the world. s/Android/Windows/ and s/Europe/USA/ and it could be Microsoft at the end of the antitrust case in the 90s.
- josefx 4y ago
  > Android has created more choice for everyone Same way IE did back when Microsoft provided it for "free".
robomartin 4y ago
Does the money in these cases go to government? Not sure how it is in the EU. This is one of the aspects of government-based fines I dislike. The money should go to the people, the victims, not government. They go after a company that may have damaged consumers and then proceed to grab the fine instead of giving it to the people who were the actual victims of the transgression.
- perlgeek 4y ago
  It's simply not practical to determine with certainty who owned an Android phone during the time that Google violated the antitrust laws, and divide the payout among them.
  - genewitch 4y ago
    I get class action checks from a single online grocery order i made in 2010. I'm getting a class action check for a used vehicle i bought in my state where my state isn't involved in the class, but the vehicle was originally sold in a class state. i'm pretty sure the panopticon that is google can determine who had an android phone, ever.
- layer8 4y ago
  The money will go into the EU budget, which for the most part benefits EU citizens. And everyone will benefit from Google having to change (or already having changed) their agreements with device manufacturers. It’s like when you pay a parking fine, the money doesn’t go to the specific people inconvenienced or endangered by your wrong parking, it goes into the municipal budget.
- wickedsickeune 4y ago
  The money of this fine is not to repair damages to individuals, it's to disincentivize behaviour. Plus if it's used for expenses of the EU, it indirectly goes to the people, as they will have to contribute less taxes.
gwerbret 4y ago
A summary of the original findings by the European Commission (1): "By decision of 18 July 2018, the Commission fined Google for having abused its dominant position by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on manufacturers of mobile devices and on mobile network operators, in some cases since 1 January 2011. Three types of restriction were identified: 1. those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store); 2. those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google; 3. those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices." 1: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3862705/en/ https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3862705/en/
- nilsbunger 4y ago
  #2 is the same thing Microsoft got busted for by US antitrust in the late 90s. Microsoft had required computer vendors to NOT sell computers with other OSes (eg Linux). At one point they insisted computer vendors pay for a Windows license on all computers they shipped, even ones shipped without Windows.
  - sylware 4y ago
    Now, it is implicit, and you better care or the hidden OEM price of doz, will skyrocket for _you_. Even, rumors says that a future doz update may brick _your_ hardware...
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Fairly reasonable demand, if you ask me. #1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.
mritun 4y ago
Extremely interesting point in this ruling that I have never seen before and I guarantee is sending shockwaves to the boardrooms is the definition of market. In this ruling EU chose to define the market as “Android phone manufacturers all over the world except China”. Of course that definition is very peculiar. I was doubtful that it would stick but apparently it did. This is fascinating that a regulator can define market as “users of YOUR_PRODUCT excluding all competitors you thought AND across the world EXCEPT the very place where everything is made”. Now that it has stuck, it would change the dynamics of business. It started with tech but its going to trickle down :)
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  The market they're interested in is the EU. So "all over the world except China" includes the EU. Defining the market as the region the governing authority has power over is nothing new: The FTC rules on the US market, the European Commission rules on the EU market.
throwaway4837 4y ago
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  Isn’t that the case with any fine collected by any government? Why are people suddenly so much against these types of fines when it’s the EU fining them?
  - NtochkaNzvanova 4y ago
    - brynjolf 4y ago
      "mad"
      - NtochkaNzvanova 4y ago
        big mad
    - berry_sortoro 4y ago
- t_mann 4y ago
  Are you claiming that EU officials are illegally pocketing the collected fines for themselves, or do you just not know how government budgets work?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- gnulinux 4y ago
  By this criticism, are we to understand that you're against all fines collected by the government? Everything from parking tickets to penalties paid for crimes, misdemeanors, felonies by citizens etc? If that's the case, that seems like a very fringe perspective, consistent only with "all taxation is theft" flavored libertarianism. EU is a democratically accountable institution, in theory (and also in practice) voters are able to affect the way these fines are used, and how they're collected. Yes, these fines are not going to be redistributed into EU citizens' pockets, but they will be used in ways that will benefit EU citizens one way or another.
saurik 4y ago
Previously discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32835000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32835000
gniv 4y ago
It's interesting how the two continents are keeping each other in check when it comes to major abuses. The EU fining big US tech and the US fining VW are the prominent examples. In each case the home country has big incentives to keep the status quo fully aware that it's bad for consumers.
- curiousgal 4y ago
  I can't help but roll my eyes at the hypocrisy of the EU. One prime example is French websites forcing you to pay 3 euros when you refuse cookies.
antonymy 4y ago
The fallout from this should be interesting. This fine is a substantial part (roughly 25%!) of Google's overall revenue from the EMEA region (Europe, Middle East, Africa), of which the EU is probably like 90%, at least, of the total, so it's probably toing the line of actually making the EU unprofitable to Google considering the costs of future compliance to avoid being fined again. Worse: this was not as steep as the fine could have been, they could've fined them about double this amount under current regulations, but chose not to. Probably because that would have pushed Google's EU operations into the red for sure and made the decision easy for them. To be sure the company won't be in trouble financially, their global revenue can cover the fine, but that doesn't stop the EU from potentially being a net loss for the company going forward. Abandoning the EU would be a drastic step, though. It's going to be interesting to see how they adapt to this. Another fine on this scale and I think they will pull out.
- locallost 4y ago
  They do 200 billion in ad sales a year. Without checking the data, I am pretty sure the EU is at least their third largest market, if not the second. This is definitely a lot less than a 1/4 of their revenue and they're not going anywhere.
- uni_rule 4y ago
  I hate that fines proportional to the revenue giant companies make from doing shady shit are the exception and not the rule
- weatherlite 4y ago
  The EU seems fine with the idea actually - it wants more independence on technology and said so several times. There will be many many pissed off European users for sure but that never stopped the EU elite from making a decision. Still - seems like a reach to me.
  - antonymy 4y ago
    I just remember when the EU passed that legislation that made it legal for member states to require Google to pay a fee to newspapers for linking to their content in Google News. Only a few countries bothered to try enforcing it, notably Spain did, and the result was Google called their bluff and de-listed every newspaper in Spain from Google News. It did not take long until Spain relented and permitted newspapers to waive the requirement with exemptions (i.e. allow status quo ante), which is exactly what happened for the bulk of them. Google definitely wants to stay in this market, but I don't think the EU has as much leverage as they think.
BenjiWiebe 4y ago
Apparently the court system still uses 32 bits. (~4B is the 32bit integer limit...)
dalbasal 4y ago
I'm kind of bummed that FOSS licencing isn't one of the teeth here. The anticompetitive aspects here are based in overly restrictive distributor contracts. The fact that android and chrome are so full of FOSS, yet Google does what it does...
ShredKazoo 4y ago
Who gets the $4B? How will it be determined where it's spent?
AtNightWeCode 4y ago
Android/GP is the most corrupted market in the history of mankind. Just baffling how EU aim for non-important things.
sizzle 4y ago
I really respect the EU for having the guts to hold corporations accountable.
frozencell 4y ago
How much is Google Revenue?
Raziarazzi 4y ago
This is a big win for Google, who has been fighting an EU ruling that said it used its Android mobile operating system to stymie rivals. The ruling was upheld by the European Court of Justice on Thursday.
ernirulez 4y ago

614 points by april_22 4y ago

While I am in favour of efforts like the GDPR to protect users data, I wonder if all this anti-bigtech sentiment is actually justified and where it will eventually lead to

zmgsabst 4y ago
I expect some kind of: - common carrier status for “platforms” - PII laws, broadly
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  For your first point, that’s more or less what the Digital Market Act is and it was adopted in July. They call “platforms” “gatekeepers” but you got the idea of it. It should become enforceable by Q3 2023.
metadat 4y ago
Hopefully it can actually entice Google into changing it's behavior. The US fines are so small they are a joke, a light tax on doing business.
rvz 4y ago
It is a long time coming and still a long way to go and the surveillance big tech giants should pay a high price for abusing and violating the privacy of hundreds of millions of users. It's a shame that this fine is too generous to Google and it won't scare them. It should be much larger than that and should be in the multi-billions of dollars.
- metadat 4y ago
  - rvz 4y ago
    > What? Did GPT3 write the parent comment? No. Why do you think that is? > This is a multi-billion dollar fine, a $4.1B fine. As it should be the standard and nothing less than that. Even so, this one is a 'generous' multi-billion dollar fine that won't scare them. I am saying it needs to be much higher than that. GPT-3 cannot explain itself or its own comments, can it?
    - metadat 4y ago
      Losing 5% of Google's annual profits will absolutely scare the shit out of them. Consider how much this harms their ability to keep reinvesting the profits into growing the business. A 5% loss is likely sufficient to get them to stop for a moment and rethink their strategy so the punishment won't recur. > No. Why do you think that is? Because you lament the lack of a multi-billion dollar fine when the title states that it's a $4B fine. This comes off as nonsensical and disconnected from reality, in a way that triggered "¯\_(ツ)_/¯, maybe it's GPT3". With that said, I meant it as a joke, not a serious accusation. The likely explanation here is this comes down to the common case of human confusion. As a tangential aside: I can only conclude that due to the curse of knowledge, we collectively are overly paranoid about bot commenters on HN. I was just accused of being a bot just two or three days ago. Cheers and take care.
      - rvz 4y ago
        > Losing 5% of Google's annual profits will absolutely scare the shit out of them. No it won't. We all know that this won't be the last of such violations from these big tech companies like Google which the EU is disputing and especially when Facebook paid a similar fine to the FTC years ago and is once again still violating the privacy of its users. So it is clear that they still wouldn't change even if the fine is as high as that. The fact is, they are not scared of these fines. Setting them in the multi-billion dollars should be the standard and the minimum and continuous violations warrant a much higher significant fine than this generous discounted fine which Google knows it can easily afford to do it again. For them, the violations is worth it and pays more than these so-called generous 'fines'. > Because you lament the lack of a multi-billion dollar fine when the title states that it's a $4B fine. This comes off as nonsensical and disconnected from reality, in a way that triggered "¯\_(ツ)_/¯, maybe it's GPT3". Except I already said that 'this' fine "needs to be much larger" and disagreed with the EU's 'generous' fine. I'm talking fines of over $10B dollars, which that still qualifies as 'multi-billions of dollars' and 'much larger' than the EU's small fine. I made myself perfectly clear on my whole point. So my comment is hardly 'GPT-3 bot' generated.
Someone 4y ago
If you’re in favor of efforts like the GDPR, why do you call this anti-bigtech sentiment? It’s pro-privacy sentiment. The GDPR applies to smalltech, too, and smalltech gets fined. For example, an individual got fined €600 about two months ago for pointing a video camera at a shared access road (https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-1397 https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-1397) You can find many more examples of small fines at https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/.
athenot 4y ago
With a small fine, it's just an annoying cost of doing business. With this ruling, there's a possibility it may actually change the risk/benefit assessment for companies that insist on doing whatever they want with user data. Maybe the lines of business which require promiscuous data sharing in order to be profitable will stop operating in the EU, and give rise to other business models. Whether these newer ones will be better or worse is not yet known, though the gamble in the EU is that it won't be worse.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  ... wasn't the case about Android app bundling, not user data?
xani_ 4y ago
Breaking the law that applies to is not a sentiment. The same law punished small companies too
seydor 4y ago
GDPR has been pro-big tech according to all the studies i have seen
- esperent 4y ago
  Studies such as?
  - seydor 4y ago
    https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gdpr-effect-how-data-privacy-regulation-shaped-firm-performance-globally https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gdpr-effect-how-data-privacy-...
    - esperent 4y ago
      > In contrast, there is no evidence that large technology companies, such as Facebook and Google, experienced any reductions in either sales or profits. I'd say they might need to revise that. I think Google just saw a 4 billion euro reduction in profit.
ActorNightly 4y ago
[flagged]
jlokier 4y ago
The EU appeal the article is about has nothing at all to do with GDPR, user data, or privacy. It's about anticompetitive behaviour, i.e. antitrust. Antitrust is not particularly about tech companies, and it has been around a long time, since before modern computers. It's about misusing a position of market dominance to prevent a healthy competitive market from operating. Very large companies which are market-dominant face this problem, but they also have the resources to understand and handle the responsibility. They can either do so, or face fines and injunctions to make them do so. In severe cases they can be forced to break up dominant business units, such as happened with the breakup of AT&T in the USA some years ago. This is the same sort of thing as might have blocked nVidia from buying ARM, for example (until nVidia pulled out voluntarily). You can see how that has nothing to do with GDPR; it wasn't even in the EU.

drexlspivey 4y ago

That’s 1.45% of their annual revenue or 5.2% of their annual net profit.

988747 4y ago
Yes, but it's also a threat of further fines in future if they don't stop their shenanigans.
p-e-w 4y ago
Which is essentially nothing. Imagine an individual, caught committing an illegal act of this magnitude for the third time, being fined 1.45% of their annual pre-tax salary, with no other consequences. Speeding tickets are costlier than this in many jurisdictions.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  If you were earning minimal wage in France, that would be about $1500 of fine for the equivalent of being caught commiting burglary for the 3rd time. Quite lucrative.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Factor in marginal utility of income, and it's even more lame. $1,500 means a lot more to someone making minimum wage than $4,000,000,000 does to Google.
- tester756 4y ago
  >Which is essentially nothing. Holy shit. Is it some sign of being on HN too much? Sure, 1.45% is small, because % is shitty at representing the real value at this point at the end of the day it's fucking $4 000 000 000 It's year salary of 2200 well paid engineers That's industry-changing level of possibilities
  - Fiahil 4y ago
    closer to 8000 engineers, if you want to spend 500k/eng in salary alone (pre tax)

typon 4y ago

What amount would these EU fines have to be to make companies like Google and Facebook decide to exit the EU?

bzxcvbn 4y ago
This is never going to happen. It's just too big of a market.
- woevdbz 4y ago
  It's also really not the outcome wanted by regulators. Everyone losing access to their email and information, YouTube, etc would create absolute chaos. Antitrust's job is to rein in profit, not destroy markets.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Never is a big word. Every time the EU levies fines like this it's effectively the market getting smaller. Also, there's degrees of exit. Google can exit the market and have zero presence in the EU whilst still sub-licensing tech to affiliates who pay for the privilege and resell their stuff, whilst dealing with all the local regulatory overheads. Plenty of firms use that sort of model.
yieldcrv 4y ago
probably 15-20% of annual revenue its psychology, the board or ceo would react preemptively based on the idea that shareholders would react on their behalf shareholders (if they have voting power at all) would react for the same result at higher fine amounts than that
- viraptor 4y ago
  Speculation - google would want to operate in the EU even at a loss: 1. Other search engines regularly appearing in news / on screens would remind the non-EU users about alternatives. 2. Lost traffic is lost information. Google still relies on knowing your behaviour to improve targeting. 3. Giving a whole region to other search engines would build up their financial standing and they could threaten Google in other regions in the future.

RandomWorker 4y ago

That increases the budget of the eu parliament with 2.2% on a yearly basis if paid out in one go. [1082B for 2014-2020, 4B/1082B*6y~2.2%] A loss of 4B is a decrease of revenue by 1.5% for google. [googles revenue was 256B in 2021 4/256~1.5%]

markdestouches 4y ago
Gives you a good perspective on how big google is and how much influence it potentially has.
davidguetta 4y ago
- nielsole 4y ago
  The budget is publicly available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022B0182&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
- statusfailed 4y ago
  It mostly funds projects: > Approximately 94% of the EU budget funds programmes and projects both within member states and outside the EU. Less than 7% of the budget is used for administrative costs, and less than 3% is spent on EU civil servants' salaries. From [0], see also [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#Proportional_outgoings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#P... [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/organisation-and-rules/parliaments-budget https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/organisat...
  - origin_path 4y ago
    That's a tautology, the spending for every government will primarily go on "programmes and projects".
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago

legitster 4y ago

So... What's the end result? Google has to charge for Android? Ask users their search preference?

MikusR 4y ago
They already do both of those things.
wongarsu 4y ago
I think this is about Google's Android certification, that allows manufacturers to ship Android with any google app. Some like the Play Store are basically required by users, but Google makes it a "get all or none" deal with a lot of other demands, which includes a google search widget.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  And Apple makes it so you can't even install apps outside their app store.
- josefx 4y ago
  The deal isn't just "all or none" on a single phone, it is all or none over the entire inventory. If you sell an android phone with the play store you are no longer allowed to sell any android devices without it.
izacus 4y ago
Think of the situation with Chinese non-Google phones. You install your favorite app and it crashes on launch because the manufacturer messed with the system APIs. You run another app and it gets killed in the background, not receiving messages, because it's not on the list of your phone manufacturer partners. This is the situation with degoogled Android today - a huge compatibility mess.
moffkalast 4y ago
Android should damn well ship with multiple app stores and multiple browsers, not just the GoogleApprovedTM app store where they ban anyone that looks at them wrong or thinks about blocking ads for more than 2 miliseconds. The exclusive app stores are both iOS and Android's greatest strengths and failings at the same time. Apple is arguably the far worse offender there too. If there was an alternative app store on iOS everyone would jump ship immediately. Imagine having crossplatform Steam/GoG Mobile stores for mobile games, etc.

p-e-w 4y ago

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

esperent 4y ago
The 3 strikes law is a US thing.
- Normille 4y ago
  One of the few areas where I think the US has got it right. No-one should need more than 3 chances to stop being a dick.
  - trasz 4y ago
    This law results in people landing in jail for being poor: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-92042/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an...
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      This law results in people landing in jail for being habitual criminals. Being poor does not excuse criminal behavior.
      - johnday 4y ago
        On the other hand, it appears that being rich does excuse criminal behavior - that is, if you hire a lot of people and get them to work in an office, and they commit crimes, the company gets fined and you don't go to prison (almost always).

mdrzn 4y ago

Yesss! EU is doing its job. I'm very happy every time they manage to give a slap on the wrist of these monopolies

moffkalast 4y ago
Wrist slaps are getting slightly stronger though!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

nottorp 4y ago

> Android has created more choice for everyone, not less Did it? I can choose between an iOS phone and an Android phone. I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options.

amelius 4y ago
If you're looking for a phone without ads/spyware, there is less choice because the EU sees Android as a similar product-category as iOS, thereby not identifying iOS as a monopoly (and Android as well, in its own category).
- ericmay 4y ago
  I think you can argue that iOS/Android are a duopoly but I'm having a hard time seeing how iOS is a monopoly. Mobile OS: iOS Android (third options from Korea/China?) Hardware: iPhone Pixel Galaxy etc.
Hamcha 4y ago
Remember when Google refused to put Youtube on Windows Phone and when Microsoft made their own client, Google forced them to take it off their own store? Truly advocating for more choice. (Press at the time: https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube_app_round_3/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube... )
- MarkusWandel 4y ago
  I had a Windows phone. The web version of Youtube worked fine. The Youtube app on Android is such a pain in the a* that sometimes I use the web version of Youtube on an Android tablet I have!
  - oblak 4y ago
    I have only used the android version once and what a pain that was. Clearly designed to only push content on the unsuspecting user and nothing else.

asadlionpk 4y ago

EU has decided to make a living out of fining the tech companies regularly.

fabatka 4y ago
Seems like it's still worth it for the tech companies, so I'd say it's a smart move.
nebalee 4y ago
And Google has decided to make a living out of breaking the law regularly.
rr888 4y ago
They continuously fined the banks until they're all nearly bankrupt. I guess tech is next now.
- chmod775 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure bailouts/other support the banking sector received dwarf any fines they got for breaking the law. Banks going bankrupt is their own fault entirely. It's a "you had one job" kind of thing. If you want to find someone who is bad at managing your money and somehow breaks the law at the same time, a bank is apparently your best bet.
lizardactivist 4y ago
No, they're not fined regularly, only when they knowingly violate the law. And it's $4B after 4 years since the beginning of the investigation, a tiny increase to an already massive EU budget.

Normille 4y ago

Cool. The EU does have its [many!] faults. But they have a pretty good track record when it comes to consumer rights and consumer choice. Next up I'd like to see them do the same for the plethora of incompatible cordless power-tool systems out there as they did with insisting all mobile phones standardise on a USB connector.

origin_path 4y ago
"consumer choice ... insisting all mobile phones standardise" Although it's not the most important thing in the world, forcing standardization through law is the opposite of giving consumers choices.
- Normille 4y ago
  That's a bit of a disingenuous comment though. I'd make a distinction between forcing standardisation on something like a power supply connector and forcing standardisation of actual products themselves. Standardisation of the former means we don't have to have half a dozen sockets on the wall because every domestic appliance manufacturer uses a different design plug... or have each of those sockets provide a different voltage because every appliance manufacturer opted for a different voltage. Standardisation of the latter leads to waiting 15 years for your Trabant.
- jlokier 4y ago
  I don't think it qualifies as an "opposite", because enforced standards also create consumer choice sometimes. Case in point: The enforced standardising of mobile phone chargers has given consumers more choice of chargers to use with their phone. Thas proven quite useful in practice, e.g. when they leave the one that came with their device at home because they didn't expect to need it, or when the manufacturer's own brand is more expensive than an alternative, or if they have an old phone. I remember before USB-C standardised phone power, when visiting someone the chance that they had a power supply you could use was very low, because each one used a different connector. Even different models from the same brand. If you went travelling at short notice, you might have to buy a second charger just to keep you going for a few days. That's no longer required. Over the years you would end up with a box full of incompatible chargers, all e-waste. I think I have about 10. This particular consumer benefit didn't happen voluntarily among manufacturers (unlike, say, SIM cards), so forcing it has increased consumer choice in some useful respects. I prefer Apple's lightning connector (even though I don't have an iPhone), and other connectors better than USB-C would surely emerge if allowed to, so I do see benefits in not enforcing a standard like that too strictly. But the situation before USB-C mobile power was less consumer choice not more, for consumers of almost every phone.

Fiahil 4y ago

Maybe a boring question, but where do the money goes ? Can they use that to finance grants or RFPs for other projects ?

endisneigh 4y ago

It’s not clear to me what the EU, specifically, wants Google to do here from the article. Any insight?

layer8 4y ago
For example, not require that Chrome be preinstalled as the default browser on Android devices, and not require that a bundle of Google apps be preinstalled if any of them is preinstalled.
- wara23arish 4y ago
  there is no way to delete safari from iphones
  - layer8 4y ago
    That’s Apple’s choice as the manufacturer of the device, while Google enforces conditions on Android device manufacturers. Apple would have the same problem if they would allow other companies to build iOS devices but force Safari to be the preinstalled as the default browser AND derive ad income from the use of Safari.
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      Microsoft chose to have desktop browser integration as the manufacturer of Windows. That didn't protect them from fines.
      - layer8 4y ago
        That’s not the same situation, Microsoft didn’t manufacture the PCs.
  - hellisothers 4y ago
    I know it’s a nuance but Apple doesn’t license its OS to other manufacturers. So while Google dictates “if you use the Android OS you must bundle Chrome”, Apple isn’t dictating terms like that to another manufacturer.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago

If the page fails to scroll on your screen, just disable JS (one click in uBlock Origin).

ncmncm 4y ago

Yet, still pocket change. It is commendable that EU does not allow miscreants to tie up fines in an endless legal maze.

dahfizz 4y ago
What % of global revenue or profit do you think an appropriate fine is?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  That is for courts, but it should be enough to produce correct behavior by eliminating incentive to violate. If the fine is too small, it becomes operating expense, as is usual in the US. Probably any fine should accompany (but not depend on results from) criminal charges for a company officer.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    So you believe Google made more than $4B with their Android licensing practices in the EU? I think that is unlikely, and I think it is likely we will see Google change the illegal licensing. I am more than happy to see a Google exec get charged for a crime if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed that crime.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      If it takes a $4B fine to get Google to behave, then a $4B fine is the right amount, regardless of revenue. Revenue hints at the fine that would get their attention. We charge people with a crime to see if their part in it can be proved. Second-guessing the court produces often bad results.
    - mqus 4y ago
      > I think that is unlikely, and I think it is likely we will see Google change the illegal licensing. According to another comment, they even already changed their practices in response, a few years ago

pmontra 4y ago

Google's reaction. > We are disappointed that the Court did not annul the decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and around the world. s/Android/Windows/ and s/Europe/USA/ and it could be Microsoft at the end of the antitrust case in the 90s.

josefx 4y ago
> Android has created more choice for everyone Same way IE did back when Microsoft provided it for "free".

robomartin 4y ago

Does the money in these cases go to government? Not sure how it is in the EU. This is one of the aspects of government-based fines I dislike. The money should go to the people, the victims, not government. They go after a company that may have damaged consumers and then proceed to grab the fine instead of giving it to the people who were the actual victims of the transgression.

perlgeek 4y ago
It's simply not practical to determine with certainty who owned an Android phone during the time that Google violated the antitrust laws, and divide the payout among them.
- genewitch 4y ago
  I get class action checks from a single online grocery order i made in 2010. I'm getting a class action check for a used vehicle i bought in my state where my state isn't involved in the class, but the vehicle was originally sold in a class state. i'm pretty sure the panopticon that is google can determine who had an android phone, ever.
layer8 4y ago
The money will go into the EU budget, which for the most part benefits EU citizens. And everyone will benefit from Google having to change (or already having changed) their agreements with device manufacturers. It’s like when you pay a parking fine, the money doesn’t go to the specific people inconvenienced or endangered by your wrong parking, it goes into the municipal budget.
wickedsickeune 4y ago
The money of this fine is not to repair damages to individuals, it's to disincentivize behaviour. Plus if it's used for expenses of the EU, it indirectly goes to the people, as they will have to contribute less taxes.

gwerbret 4y ago

A summary of the original findings by the European Commission (1): "By decision of 18 July 2018, the Commission fined Google for having abused its dominant position by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on manufacturers of mobile devices and on mobile network operators, in some cases since 1 January 2011. Three types of restriction were identified: 1. those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store); 2. those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google; 3. those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices." 1: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3862705/en/ https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3862705/en/

nilsbunger 4y ago
#2 is the same thing Microsoft got busted for by US antitrust in the late 90s. Microsoft had required computer vendors to NOT sell computers with other OSes (eg Linux). At one point they insisted computer vendors pay for a Windows license on all computers they shipped, even ones shipped without Windows.
- sylware 4y ago
  Now, it is implicit, and you better care or the hidden OEM price of doz, will skyrocket for _you_. Even, rumors says that a future doz update may brick _your_ hardware...
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Fairly reasonable demand, if you ask me. #1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.

mritun 4y ago

Extremely interesting point in this ruling that I have never seen before and I guarantee is sending shockwaves to the boardrooms is the definition of market. In this ruling EU chose to define the market as “Android phone manufacturers all over the world except China”. Of course that definition is very peculiar. I was doubtful that it would stick but apparently it did. This is fascinating that a regulator can define market as “users of YOUR_PRODUCT excluding all competitors you thought AND across the world EXCEPT the very place where everything is made”. Now that it has stuck, it would change the dynamics of business. It started with tech but its going to trickle down :)

ThatPlayer 4y ago
The market they're interested in is the EU. So "all over the world except China" includes the EU. Defining the market as the region the governing authority has power over is nothing new: The FTC rules on the US market, the European Commission rules on the EU market.

throwaway4837 4y ago

stingraycharles 4y ago
Isn’t that the case with any fine collected by any government? Why are people suddenly so much against these types of fines when it’s the EU fining them?
- NtochkaNzvanova 4y ago
  - brynjolf 4y ago
    "mad"
    - NtochkaNzvanova 4y ago
      big mad
  - berry_sortoro 4y ago
t_mann 4y ago
Are you claiming that EU officials are illegally pocketing the collected fines for themselves, or do you just not know how government budgets work?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gnulinux 4y ago
By this criticism, are we to understand that you're against all fines collected by the government? Everything from parking tickets to penalties paid for crimes, misdemeanors, felonies by citizens etc? If that's the case, that seems like a very fringe perspective, consistent only with "all taxation is theft" flavored libertarianism. EU is a democratically accountable institution, in theory (and also in practice) voters are able to affect the way these fines are used, and how they're collected. Yes, these fines are not going to be redistributed into EU citizens' pockets, but they will be used in ways that will benefit EU citizens one way or another.

saurik 4y ago

Previously discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32835000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32835000

gniv 4y ago

It's interesting how the two continents are keeping each other in check when it comes to major abuses. The EU fining big US tech and the US fining VW are the prominent examples. In each case the home country has big incentives to keep the status quo fully aware that it's bad for consumers.

curiousgal 4y ago
I can't help but roll my eyes at the hypocrisy of the EU. One prime example is French websites forcing you to pay 3 euros when you refuse cookies.

antonymy 4y ago

The fallout from this should be interesting. This fine is a substantial part (roughly 25%!) of Google's overall revenue from the EMEA region (Europe, Middle East, Africa), of which the EU is probably like 90%, at least, of the total, so it's probably toing the line of actually making the EU unprofitable to Google considering the costs of future compliance to avoid being fined again. Worse: this was not as steep as the fine could have been, they could've fined them about double this amount under current regulations, but chose not to. Probably because that would have pushed Google's EU operations into the red for sure and made the decision easy for them. To be sure the company won't be in trouble financially, their global revenue can cover the fine, but that doesn't stop the EU from potentially being a net loss for the company going forward. Abandoning the EU would be a drastic step, though. It's going to be interesting to see how they adapt to this. Another fine on this scale and I think they will pull out.

locallost 4y ago
They do 200 billion in ad sales a year. Without checking the data, I am pretty sure the EU is at least their third largest market, if not the second. This is definitely a lot less than a 1/4 of their revenue and they're not going anywhere.
uni_rule 4y ago
I hate that fines proportional to the revenue giant companies make from doing shady shit are the exception and not the rule
weatherlite 4y ago
The EU seems fine with the idea actually - it wants more independence on technology and said so several times. There will be many many pissed off European users for sure but that never stopped the EU elite from making a decision. Still - seems like a reach to me.
- antonymy 4y ago
  I just remember when the EU passed that legislation that made it legal for member states to require Google to pay a fee to newspapers for linking to their content in Google News. Only a few countries bothered to try enforcing it, notably Spain did, and the result was Google called their bluff and de-listed every newspaper in Spain from Google News. It did not take long until Spain relented and permitted newspapers to waive the requirement with exemptions (i.e. allow status quo ante), which is exactly what happened for the bulk of them. Google definitely wants to stay in this market, but I don't think the EU has as much leverage as they think.

BenjiWiebe 4y ago

Apparently the court system still uses 32 bits. (~4B is the 32bit integer limit...)

dalbasal 4y ago

I'm kind of bummed that FOSS licencing isn't one of the teeth here. The anticompetitive aspects here are based in overly restrictive distributor contracts. The fact that android and chrome are so full of FOSS, yet Google does what it does...

ShredKazoo 4y ago

Who gets the $4B? How will it be determined where it's spent?

AtNightWeCode 4y ago

Android/GP is the most corrupted market in the history of mankind. Just baffling how EU aim for non-important things.

sizzle 4y ago

I really respect the EU for having the guts to hold corporations accountable.

frozencell 4y ago

How much is Google Revenue?

Raziarazzi 4y ago

This is a big win for Google, who has been fighting an EU ruling that said it used its Android mobile operating system to stymie rivals. The ruling was upheld by the European Court of Justice on Thursday.

ernirulez 4y ago