34 ms·

Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law

447 points by Aldipower 2y ago

josefritzishere 2y ago
These fines make sense. The EU is driving a pro-competition capitalist model. American companies will have to compete, and not just entrap users.
pjc50 2y ago
Ah, they said the T-word, presumably to invoke some political fire support from across the Atlantic. I wonder how that will go. Of course, this is not a tariff, for two reasons: firstly, it does not involve money (the UK's digital services tax does, but that's not this), and secondly, the same rules would apply to EU native competitors .. if there were any. It's what's knows as a "non tariff trade barrier". Of course those are all over the place, and many of them are there to protect consumer and public interests. > The EU regulator also dropped Meta's Marketplace's designation as a DMA gatekeeper because the number of users fell below the threshold. Now that's interesting. I think the threshold is 45 million? Falling EU userbase?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I'm a bit surprised usage was ever that high; that would imply that almost 10% of the population was using _Facebook Marketplace_! I think I've looked at it maybe twice since it launched, to admire all the weird scams. Maybe it's gotten better since? It used to be sub-ebay levels of complete nonsense.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    Facebook Marketplace is extremely popular depending on the city you’re in. It has taken the place of Craigslist for younger generations.
    - xnorswap 2y ago
      What surprises me is how much people on this site underestimate facebook. Facebook literally is the internet for millions of people. Facebook marketplace is far larger than craigslist and ebay combined, even if you take both of those at their respective peaks. The open web might seem huge, but it's actually dwarfed in size by Facebook.
      - aaronbaugher 2y ago
        Yeah, I often see claims online that Facebook is dead, Facebook is just Boomers posting pictures of their grandkids, etc. Maybe it's a regional thing, because where I live, everyone's on Facebook. Most small businesses, organizations, and communities here use it as their primary (or only) online presence for promoting themselves and staying in contact with their customers/members. Marketplace has completely replaced the old newspaper classified ads. That's unfortunate since the search in Marketplace sucks, but it's happened. My family uses its messenger for organizing things because everyone has it, even if some of us rarely use it except for that. If I wanted to draw attention to something locally, whether it was promoting a service or running for office, I'd be a fool not to use Facebook.
        MyPasswordSucks 2y ago
        Part of the disconnect is that these days, a lot of the Facebook use is concentrated in places you don't necessarily see from the outside. Like, fifteen years ago, if you happened upon the Facebook page of a random person, you'd usually see a handful of vacation pictures, a meme or three, some updates from their latest Clash of Cookie Farm Kitchen Dash session, and whatnot. These days, all that stuff - if it's even still being posted - is likely siloed away to Friends-only posts. That random person might still be there, might still be logging in every day, but you don't see the Messenger group chats and the Marketplace offers/haggles. Likewise for small businesses - a lot of the "look at this thing we're selling now, come check it out" posts now go to Instagram. They might still be auto-logging in, still responding to PMs on Facebook, still clicking a few news posts here and there, but that's just not visible on the outside, and creates the perception of Facebook the Ghost Town.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Remember that you're probably in a bubble. Marketplace was incredibly popular back in the days when I was at FB, and I'd have expected it to get more popular based on the people I see around me (kids stuff is all over it). Maybe the gatekeeper thing is a reflection of less people in the EU using FB at all, rather than specifically Marketplace.
    - Sloowms 2y ago
      That bubble is the EU, which this law is about. I know a bunch of European countries have their own Ebay/Craigslist websites. Marketplace has never been even somewhat popular in my country.
      - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        Yeah fair. I guess I forget that Ireland is now the largest English speaking country in the EU, so I guess I'm in a bubble. I am still really surprised that Marketplace is no longer big enough to count as a gatekeeper.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > the same rules would apply to EU native competitors .. if there were any. By this same logic, I guess we can say that the EU isn't trying to build a trade barrier favoring local competitors. So, while, as you say, > It's what's knows as a "non tariff trade barrier". ...It's also not that, since the goal isn't prevent them from competing equally in the market, where they have no competition.
- Mindwipe 2y ago
  I wonder if eBay's free listings is taking marketshare back?
  - wackget 2y ago
    eBay's listings are no longer free. They are now extorting their pound of flesh via a so-called "Buyer Protection Fee" which forces buyers, rather than sellers, to pay extra when purchasing items from private sellers.
    - TrackerFF 2y ago
      Which is ironic, as both Ebay and PayPal tends to automatically side with buyer 99.9999% of the time in disputes.
    - TonyTrapp 2y ago
      eBay is very different across countries. In Germany, eBay listings are free again for private sellers after they noticed the exodus to other platforms. I know this is not the case in other countries, so talking about eBay as a general platform is very difficult.
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
- reissbaker 2y ago
  "the same rules would apply to EU maybe competitors... if there were any." That can actually be an example of a tariff, though. Basically every country specializes in something, and imports things they're not good at making. For example: cheese, or luxury watches, or GPUs. If you have a special law that charges companies money only for the categories you import and you carve out exceptions for "small" (aka domestic) markets, a la the DMA, you have effectively created a tariff.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
drooopy 2y ago
I don't understand meta's statement that this handicaps american businesses while allows European and Chinese companies to operate under different standards.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The measures apply by size, not by country of origin. It happens that the companies over the threshold are American. So their statement is basically untrue, but that's politics these days.
  - robin_reala 2y ago
    There are a couple of companies in the list[1] (of seven) that aren’t US-based. ByteDance are Chinese and Booking are EU (NL). [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
    - phatfish 2y ago
      Booking Holdings which Wikipedia has as the parent of booking.com seems to be US owned.
      - andsoitis 2y ago
        Yes. Booking Holdings Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, listed on the Nasdaq with principal executive offices in Connecticut. See SEC filing: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e58-3de2-41a6-a9fd-eb45b863b1e2.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e5...
      - xeromal 2y ago
        Had no idea booking.com was american. I always assumed it was euro-based.
        dagw 2y ago
tossandthrow 2y ago
This is a result of the severe neglect to enforce anti trust in the US. Now other countries need to kick in with diplomatic adverse effects... sigh.
ENGNR 2y ago
Would looove to distribute an app without it having to be in the App Store, and not paying the App Store fee (direct download of signed binary). Happy to pay a yearly fee or fee per update to cover code review if it’s crucial. But 30% of revenue for doing bugger all… cmon, they’re squeezing the lemon a bit too hard.
- intrasight 2y ago
  From what I hear, users are tired of installing apps. You can make a website and not face any gatekeepers or restrictions.
  - popol12 2y ago
    What if your app needs to send notifications and/or use bluetooth, for instance ?
    - intrasight 2y ago
      From what I hear, most users disable notifications. You can do like Airbnb and send text messages. You can do Bluetooth in JavaScript through the Web Bluetooth API.
      - Sayrus 2y ago
        A little caveat of Web Bluetooth API is that it's like WebUSB and mostly available on Chrome. I don't think Chrome for iOS is using blink yet so you'll probably not have access to this API on iOS.
        madeofpalk 2y ago
        Both WebUSB and WebBluetooth is still a draft spec, and is doubtful to progress any further with both Mozilla and Webkit objecting to it https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#anti-fingerprinting https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#anti-fingerprinting Essentially, these are proprietary that are a part of an embrace, extend, and extinguish strategy by Google Chrome.
hadrien01 2y ago
Press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sunaookami 2y ago
  Huh, so Facebook Marketplace is no longer designated as a Gatekeeper because it has not enough business users. -- Other related PR: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1086 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... This rules that the "Core Technology Fee" is de facto illegal.
izacus 2y ago
The EU Comission press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
- robinwohlers 2y ago
  It’s funny to see a “share this page on Facebook” option at the bottom of the press release.
  - qwertox 2y ago
    Which shows that they're not discriminating. TikTok is missing, though.
  - diggan 2y ago
    At least they seem to have their own system in place for displaying those share buttons, as there are no requests to 3rd party domains on page load, everything loads from *europa.eu. Could have been worse :)
  - owebmaster 2y ago
    It shouldn't be funny, social media isn't doing the world any favor, they gotta behave
    - robinwohlers 2y ago
      “Not funny haha, funny weird”
  - miohtama 2y ago
    EU comission has been fined for breaching GDPR they designed themselves https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/first-eu-court-fines-eu-breaching-own-data-protection-law-2025-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/first-eu-court-fines-eu...
    - bootsmann 2y ago
yupyupyups 2y ago
Apple should remove privacy from their vocabolary.
- lopis 2y ago
  They keep doing that to try to paint this as a loss for users. Users have much to win with this, as it will give some real competition to the Apple ecosystem, and potentially saving users money. So it's only natural Apple will pull all the cards like saying it threatens users privacy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
madeofpalk 2y ago
> Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. To me, this is the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after. It is unfair that Apple restricts Netflix from telling it's users that they can sign up and pay for Netlifx on their own website. It's unfair that Netflix can't even tell its users the rules that Apple enforces on them. It's telling that Gruber is pretty staunchly against EU/DMA interferance in Apple, and broadly thinks they're wrong. But this is the one thing he agrees on > If Apple wants to insist on a cut of in-app purchased subscription revenue, that’s their prerogative. What gets me, though, are the rules that prevent apps that eschew in-app purchases from telling users in plain language how to actually pay. Not only is Netflix not allowed to link to their website, they can’t even tell the user they need to go to netflix.com to sign up https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing https://daringfireball.net/2020/07/parsing_cooks_opening_statement https://daringfireball.net/2020/07/parsing_cooks_opening_sta... (I think Apple now has their 'reader app' carveout for apps like Netflix, but it's still pretty obtuse and inconsistent)
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  Also, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1086 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... > The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple failed to comply with this obligation [to allow third party app stores] in view of the conditions it imposes on app (and app store) developers. Developers wanting to use alternative app distribution channels on iOS are disincentivised from doing so as this requires them to opt for business terms which include a new fee (Apple's Core Technology Fee). Apple also introduced overly strict eligibility requirements, hampering developers' ability to distribute their apps through alternative channels. Finally, Apple makes it overly burdensome and confusing for end users to install apps when using such alternative app distribution channels. This is great to hear. It sounds like they've just found Apple non-compliant in making alternate app stores as discouraging for both developers and user as possible. I guess it'll take another 12 months for any fines or changes from Apple.
mentalgear 2y ago
A good start, but far from enough regarding the societal damage (anti-competitive, anti-user, psychological harm especially of minors, proliferation of radicalisation) they did.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  *insert Mike Myers One Million Dollars meme they made more than the fine, so it's just reduced profit a little. mere higher cost of business and continue as usual.
  - riffraff 2y ago
    The DMA fines are not supposed to be punitive damages, they're a tool to correct behavior, like the GDPR. If Apple & co don't comply there are higher amounts that can be imposed, but the idea is that the companies will comply before that.
  - mdhb 2y ago
    The EU made a serious point that these are the first time they are issuing those fines as as such have capped them as a signal to show that they are serious but also that they aren’t taking the maximalist approach some in the US are accusing them of. They can legally go for 10% of global revenue if I’m not mistaken as the top level of fines and both Apple and Meta would be wise to not find themselves as repeat offenders as a result.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
JSR_FDED 2y ago
[flagged]
- tiborsaas 2y ago
  Because the fine is exactly about giving people a more fair chance to vote with their wallets. This is from the Yahoo article: "The EU competition watchdog said Apple must remove technical and commercial restrictions that prevent app developers from steering users to cheaper deals outside the App Store."
  - zpeti 2y ago
    You can buy an android or huawei phone. Just because the ecosystem you like to use doesn't have certain features doesn't make it a monopoly.
    - boxed 2y ago
      Switching from one duopoly to another isn't choice.
    - ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
      You can leave the market if you dont like the rules of the market.
      - iwontberude 2y ago
        Consumers should have greater and greater access to markets with more favorable conditions. It’s not acceptable to have consumer hostile markets in many respects e.g. healthcare. It would behoove us as consumers to demand access to markets as mundane as cellular phones. Accepting market manipulation by oligopolistic companies to reduce choice and walking away from phone ownership altogether seems counter productive for everyone.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Setting aside that this is looking at the wrong side of the market like often happens in these discussions, what do you as a consumer do when Android or Huawei do something else that's a deal breaker for you?
jadams84 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwwwwwawa 2y ago
  [flagged]
llm_nerd 2y ago
> The EU fines could stoke tensions with U.S President Donald Trump who has threatened to levy tariffs against countries that penalise U.S. companies. Mark Zuckerberg, in his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, specifically noted this as his goal for falling in behind Trump. That Trump would be the big-stick man that would protect Meta and other cos from foreign interference. Where "interference" is anything restricting that American exceptionalism "do anything we want, however we want". Only then Trump started a trade war with quite literally the entire world -- aside from, predictably, Russia -- and now he holds, as he likes to say, no cards. The EU and anyone else can do whatever they want and Zuck and co can cry about the millions they wasted trying to buy a protection racket. Of course Meta could just withdrawn from the EU. I wish they would withdraw from Canada. Their garbage misinformation platform is a massive net negative for humanity and has offered nothing but harm for the planet.
- xvector 2y ago
  Most Canadian small businesses rely on Meta to get customers. If you think these companies don't add value, you are totally oblivious to the millions of small businesses that rely on these platforms to reach customers and niche audiences around the world.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    They need a platform, but it doesn't have to be Meta.
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - llm_nerd 2y ago
        What is ugly or uncivil about noting someone's biases? The "your small businesses would fail without Meta" line is from the official lobbyist arm of Meta, and it's usually a pretty good tell that someone is a Meta employee and is thus likely to have a very rose coloured, idealized version of the org.
popol12 2y ago
I hope this will make Apple finally comply with EU law and allow app side loading on iOS. Real side loading, not the joke they implemented since iOS 17.
- SanjayMehta 2y ago
  I would not hold my breath. They are adept at malicious compliance. Cook will do a cost/benefit assessment and will come up with another workaround.
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    The EU should instead set targets. Ie. "More than half of users have installed at least one app from a non-apple affiliated store by Jan 2026 or you shall pay a fine of $10 per month per iPhone in use in the EU".
    - _mlbt 2y ago
      That’s a terrible idea. How would they have any control over that. I think you are way overestimating the amount of iOS users that want to use software from outside the App Store.
      - rokkamokka 2y ago
        Agreed, the only realistic way they could hit such a target is to shut down their own app store...
        13_9_7_7_5_18 2y ago
        [dead]
      - londons_explore 2y ago
        If 3rd party stores didn't charge the Apple tax, I think you'd find plenty of apps moving to other stores, and within a matter of weeks more than half of users would have used a 3rd party store.
xvector 2y ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 2y ago
  They could equally make the whole thing subscription-only, but they're not going to do that.
- stavros 2y ago
  I'll be generous and assume you're being disingenuous by accident: This isn't about the ads, it's about the tracking. Meta is free to put ads wherever it wants, but it's not free to track people who don't want to be tracked. In the end, a population has the right to govern itself how it wants. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that - Meta is free to simply not operate in the EU.
  - xvector 2y ago
    Why shouldn't you allowed to track people across your own services if users consent? If they don't consent, they are free to simply not use your services. Problem solved. There is no actual need for this law. No rights are being infringed on. Just don't use the website.
    - stavros 2y ago
      Because that's how we like it, and that's the end of it. The people of the EU have said that these are the rules for doing business there, and saying "I should be able to murder people in my own house, if you don't want to be murdered, just don't come here, there's no need for anti-murdering laws" is rather irrelevant.
      - pjc50 2y ago
        > saying "I should be able to murder people in my own house, if you don't want to be murdered, just don't come here, there's no need for anti-murdering laws" The Americans call this "stand your ground".
xthukgko 2y ago
[dead]
p_ing 2y ago
Is this a fine the companies can appeal, or is this a final decision?
- lekevicius 2y ago
  They can appeal.
  - zoobab 2y ago
    They will appeal to Court so that they win another 2 years.
tiahura 2y ago
[flagged]
rini17 2y ago
They called it on themselves. Were so greedy with access to unlimited capital, bought everything out or undercut with free. And now there are no EU competitors left to lobby for more favorable regulations.
iagooar 2y ago
The EU is using populist claims to introduce laws with ideological bias (big corp bad, America bad, America corp super bad). Everyone knows the digital act was never meant to be a fair set of rules, it was introduced to punish US companies at will. At the same time, most governments, public offices, agencies and businesses in Europe would not be able to operate normally without access to American software. The problem is that it is way easier to (over)regulate and tax, than to create a strong environment for business and innovation to thrive, in order to grow your own tech giants.
- rini17 2y ago
  The real problem was that Silicon Valley was flooded with capital and bought out all competitors. Or undercut with free. Or all kinds of other Microsoftlike practices. So nobody was left in the EU to advocate for better rules.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    If that is true, how come new competitors spring up all the time in Silicon Valley and other places in the US while the European sector lies dormant?
    - codingbot3000 2y ago
      That's just a US propaganda myth people can't stop parroting. The SV ecosystem is definitely better funded, but there is no lack of digital start-ups in the EU.
    - rini17 2y ago
      Consider what happened to Nokia. The first business blunder caused it to be sold to US and gutted. Now if someone else wants to make smartphones in EU, has to start from scratch. But if that happens to US company, everything(at least the IP) stays in the US.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
HK-NC 2y ago
[flagged]
phtrivier 2y ago
> Apple faces a €500 million fine for breaching the regulation’s rules for app stores, while Meta drew a penalty of €200 million for its "pay or consent" advertising model, > The procedural fines fall short of the two giant penalties issued by the EU executive under its antitrust laws last year: €1.8 billion to Apple for abusing its dominant position while distributing music streaming apps, and €797 million to Meta for pushing its classified ads service on social media users. Really honest questions: are those fines actually paid, in practice ? Is there a way for a citizen to know ? (As in, do they appear in the public budget of the UE ?) Or are they somehow deducted from subsidies, added to taxes, etc... ? I know who collects taxes in France ("Le Tresor Public"). I don't know of a EU version of a treasury. Is it collected by one of the member states (Ireland, I would guess ?)
- i_have_an_idea 2y ago
  > somehow deducted from subsidies Do you think the EU subsidizes Meta/Apple.
  - tomalbrc 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bboygravity 2y ago
      No. The EU subsidizes electric vehicles. Not the same thing.
      - vanviegen 2y ago
        It pretty much was the same thing for years.
  - phtrivier 2y ago
    Not necessarily Meta, but it's very much possible that a large company is the recipient of both EU subsidies and EU fines :)
- 2y ago
mapcars 2y ago
> while Meta drew a penalty of €200 million for its "pay or consent" advertising model, which requires that European Union users pay to access ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram Wait, isn't pretty much all web content is like this nowadays? You have to buy youtube premium to avoid ads, how is it different?
- tpm 2y ago
  > You have to buy youtube premium to avoid ads Or you can block the ads in the browser for free. In this case, you have to consent being tracked (or pay) or otherwise the page will not display.
- sussmannbaka 2y ago
  It’s not about being shown ads, it’s about collecting (and sharing to third parties) private information that goes beyond the technically required amount to use the service. GDPR says companies need to get my consent in order to do that, that I am free to not give this consent and that a service can’t not be provided to me just because I don’t give this consent. Facebook and a bunch of other companies said “aha! We’ll just create a paid alternative!” but this doesn’t comply with the law. It just took a while to take this through the courts but if you read the law it’s clear they just stalled for time on this one.
  - mapcars 2y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, it was confusing to figure that out from the article
- blitzar 2y ago
  Pay or have your information harvested and sold. Its extortion.
  - jdminhbg 2y ago
    You’re missing a third option there, which makes it not extortion.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
WhyNotHugo 2y ago
US officials and businessmen keep on repeating the same thing: > The European Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards. But this is wildly untrue. The EU isn't hand-picking individual organisations and fining them because they're American, they're fining them because they're in breach of existing legislation. The same legislation applies to local companies. Ironically, it's the US who takes stances like the one they claim the EU is taken. E.g.: The US required that TikTok be sold, without actually proving that TikTok was in breach of any actual law. But repeating the same claims gets those claims out into the media, and that's what people hear. So we see a dissonance between what the media says (and many people believe) and what's really happening.
- paxys 2y ago
  US corporations are too used to breaking laws as they see fit and getting away with a slap on the wrist, so being asked to follow the rules feels like an attack to them.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    They're also very used to lobbying to get what they want, as soon as that's not possible, they have a tantrum.
  - StressedDev 2y ago
    That is not my experience. Every US company I have worked in spent a lot of time training employees to follow the relevant laws. I have even been on teams which had to do work to comply with the European GDPR. The message I have always received is follow the law and don’t break it.
- skyyler 2y ago
  >So we see a dissonance between what the media says (and many people believe) and what's really happening. This thing right here terrifies me. The entertainment-information media oligopoly has a tight grasp on public conversations. It feels like a hydra that can't be defeated.
paxys 2y ago
> "This isn't just about a fine; the Commission forcing us to change our business model effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service." Meta complaining about getting tariff'd is objectively hilarious.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  > the Commission forcing us to change our business model This is total, utter, complete 100% grade A organic nonsense. I worked at FB (but the same is true of basically all action driven advertising systems). Only a tiny proportion of users ever click, but they are incredibly lucrative for online advertising platforms. The whole subscription was a really transparent attempt to get people to accept the tracking and it's honestly profoundly depressing that this is what they're reduced to.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Ads work even if nobody clicks. At least, old school ads. Sensible ads. Like Coca-Cola. I have no idea how these ridiculous online gaming things stay in business but I'm sure it's much stupider.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Did you buy coca cola because santa clause was drinking it or did you buy it because it was at eye level by the register in every store in America?
      - toast0 2y ago
        How do you think those drinks get there? Beverage companies are paying for shelf space. But, if you think ads for drinks don't work, take a look at Pepsi's Project Refresh of 2010, and what happened to their sales. TLDR, Pepsi took it's superb owl ad budget and used it to do community grants instead; sales dropped and a couple years later, Pepsi went back to advertising during the superb owl and stopped doing community grants.
samdung 2y ago
Breach. Get sued. Pay Fine. Rinse. Repeat. At this point it looks like governments want the money and companies are gleefully willing to pay.
- xandrius 2y ago
  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I get it that millions isn't much but it's something, and at least it sends a signal.
  - squigz 2y ago
    Frankly, the whole "it's pointless, so this is stupid" response to some things is more tiring to me than anything. What exactly is the end-game for these people? All or nothing? That is just delusional. It is simply not how progress is made. So let's be appreciative of what little is done, and push for more? Not to mention the amount of people in here just focusing on the fine - by the way, I don't know how people can square the belief that these companies are endlessly greedy and will do anything for more money, with the belief that half a billion euros lost profit will just sit well with them - while completely ignoring the bit where these companies either comply or face even more fines.
- switch007 2y ago
  All in agreement behind closed doors with the EU bureaucrats
alexfromapex 2y ago
Millions is nothing for these companies. Just a cost of doing business.
- xandrius 2y ago
  Starting somewhere. The US ain't even doing that.
  - switch007 2y ago
    Not really. If citizens see "fines" and think "whew, they got their just deserts", it's almost worse than no fines. But the EU is frequently performative, so it doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if they agreed in advance with the EU the fines, behind some closed doors. Nothing less than a billion these days even registers
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      It could look performative if you only look at citizens. From other businesses POV though - this becomes the final decision on this given behavior under the DMA. A precedent is set, that will guide any further enforcement. - it also sets a stake in the ground for other back and forth litigations: the EU will actually fine the companies. We can argue whether this amount is too low, but on any further fines the question will never be whether the EU will actually do it (compare to the current US tariffs situation and you see why this matters) - it's easier to expand to DMA adjacent companies as needed. If Bluesky ever had to be scrutinized, this would be a reference point.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
npc_anon 2y ago
The "EU over-regulation" argument is pathetic. The exact opposite is true, 2-3 decades of zero regulation has led to Big Tech empires that can get away with anything. It harms the free market, harms the freedom to compute, creates an asymmetrical extractive relation between mega-corp and average internet user, and omnipresent surveillance. It's anti-American if "American" still means a love of freedom, personal privacy and fair competition. But I do understand the "new" American perspective. These companies are money printers some of which produce as much as $30B of pure profit in a single quarter. If such companies are to exist, they best be American I guess.
- xvector 2y ago
  > The "EU over-regulation" argument is pathetic ... It's anti-American ... I do understand the "new" American perspective. "American" means being able to make your own decisions without government overreach in every aspect of your life. "American" means being able to decide if you want to engage with a business or not, without getting the government involved. "American" means being able to reach the highest highs or risk the lowest lows on the power of your tenacity and skill alone, without having the government shoot you down when you succeed, or put meaningless performative roadblocks in your way. "American" means understanding that the government is not your friend and it doesn't need to replace your own decision making capability or ability to make choices. From your dismissive sneering tone you do not understand the American perspective. Honestly, I am not sure the typical European even could. You have not grown up in our culture, so ideas like personal responsibility, self-reliance, and the American spirit are foreign to you - or at least heavily deprioritized. You simply sneer and scoff at these concepts. You do you - this is why the EU is three decades behind and totally, utterly dependent on foreign tech - yet still somehow convinced it could catch up "if it really wanted to."
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    > You do not understand the American perspective. Honestly, understanding the USA is a pretty high bar in this day and age.
  - Bayart 2y ago
supernova87a 2y ago
Genuine question for debate: iPhone app store is a private club to which businesses can choose to belong, if they want to sell their product to certain customers. Membership in the club comes with the condition that you not talk about alternative ways to buy the same product, while selling via the club. Membership in the club is not a monopoly; there are many other channels through which to sell a company's products. Why is is against the law?
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  Because EU law says they have let others into their club.
  - simondotau 2y ago
    Apple has always allowed anyone into their club. You have to pay dues and follow some strict (but non-discriminatory) rules, but the result was a place which people liked going to. Analogies aside, the REAL question is whether Apple is entitled to charge money for access to their developer APIs. Or whether Apple is entitled to place software license terms upon use of their intellectual property, e.g. when you link against Apple libraries which are then compiled into your binary. We get up in arms about GPL violations, but also want Apple to suck shit. I don't think it's right to want it both ways.
    - bitpush 2y ago
      What if the exclusive club had one rule for owner operator and another for rest of the folks? Would you say that's pretty discriminatory?
      - simondotau 2y ago
        If the club owner wants to have a fancy seat at the nicest table in the restaurant, that's not discrimination. It's their club. They built it. Everyone knows they built it, and they can think whatever they like about that fancy seat. If they want a similarly fancy seat, they can build their own club. (Analogies aside, while I understand their rationale, it was wrong for Apple to lump the likes of Spotify and Netflix within their in-app purchase umbrella. And I also find it hilarious how people think 30% is highway robbery when 10+ years ago it was widely regarded as a fantastic deal for developers.)
gorgoiler 2y ago
I met a member of an EU pact Who said: two vast and fruitful suits of law Prevail in the courts. Near them, in their acts, Half won, a shattered victory lies, whose maw And wrinkled smile, a sneer of bitter spite, Tell that its makers well those voters fed Which yet survive, in those politic corps, The lips that lied, the hearts that bled And on the cover these words, in bold, underlined “My name is Brussels, Home of Kings: Look on my rules, ye Mighty, and be fined!” No thing beside remains. Around the court Of that great parliament, in open plans, Aerons reclined The ever mighty FAANGs endure.
mleonhard 2y ago
From the article: > The EU regulator also dropped Meta's Marketplace's designation as a DMA gatekeeper because the number of users fell below the required threshold. The EU government explains this in their press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... > Today, the Commission also found that Meta's online intermediation service Facebook Marketplace should no longer be designated under the DMA. The decision follows a request submitted by Meta on 5 March 2024 to reconsider the designation of Marketplace. Following a careful assessment of Meta's arguments and as a result of Meta's additional enforcement and continued monitoring measures to counteract the business-to-consumer use of Marketplace, the Commission found that Marketplace had less than 10,000 business users in 2024. Meta therefore no longer meets the relevant threshold giving rise to a presumption that Marketplace is an important gateway for business users to reach end users.
mrankin 1y ago
Just once, I'd like to see one of these companies stand up for themselves and say, "Fine, we'll be withdrawing completely from your market." Ok, that's nonsensical, but it sure would be fun to see the politicians scramble.
silexia 1y ago
The EU has zero innovation and zero new big businesses because of crazy regulatory overreach and harassment that is solely driven by greedy politicians.

447 points by Aldipower 2y ago

These fines make sense. The EU is driving a pro-competition capitalist model. American companies will have to compete, and not just entrap users.

pjc50 2y ago

Ah, they said the T-word, presumably to invoke some political fire support from across the Atlantic. I wonder how that will go. Of course, this is not a tariff, for two reasons: firstly, it does not involve money (the UK's digital services tax does, but that's not this), and secondly, the same rules would apply to EU native competitors .. if there were any. It's what's knows as a "non tariff trade barrier". Of course those are all over the place, and many of them are there to protect consumer and public interests. > The EU regulator also dropped Meta's Marketplace's designation as a DMA gatekeeper because the number of users fell below the threshold. Now that's interesting. I think the threshold is 45 million? Falling EU userbase?

rsynnott 2y ago
I'm a bit surprised usage was ever that high; that would imply that almost 10% of the population was using _Facebook Marketplace_! I think I've looked at it maybe twice since it launched, to admire all the weird scams. Maybe it's gotten better since? It used to be sub-ebay levels of complete nonsense.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Facebook Marketplace is extremely popular depending on the city you’re in. It has taken the place of Craigslist for younger generations.
  - xnorswap 2y ago
    What surprises me is how much people on this site underestimate facebook. Facebook literally is the internet for millions of people. Facebook marketplace is far larger than craigslist and ebay combined, even if you take both of those at their respective peaks. The open web might seem huge, but it's actually dwarfed in size by Facebook.
    - aaronbaugher 2y ago
      Yeah, I often see claims online that Facebook is dead, Facebook is just Boomers posting pictures of their grandkids, etc. Maybe it's a regional thing, because where I live, everyone's on Facebook. Most small businesses, organizations, and communities here use it as their primary (or only) online presence for promoting themselves and staying in contact with their customers/members. Marketplace has completely replaced the old newspaper classified ads. That's unfortunate since the search in Marketplace sucks, but it's happened. My family uses its messenger for organizing things because everyone has it, even if some of us rarely use it except for that. If I wanted to draw attention to something locally, whether it was promoting a service or running for office, I'd be a fool not to use Facebook.
      - MyPasswordSucks 2y ago
        Part of the disconnect is that these days, a lot of the Facebook use is concentrated in places you don't necessarily see from the outside. Like, fifteen years ago, if you happened upon the Facebook page of a random person, you'd usually see a handful of vacation pictures, a meme or three, some updates from their latest Clash of Cookie Farm Kitchen Dash session, and whatnot. These days, all that stuff - if it's even still being posted - is likely siloed away to Friends-only posts. That random person might still be there, might still be logging in every day, but you don't see the Messenger group chats and the Marketplace offers/haggles. Likewise for small businesses - a lot of the "look at this thing we're selling now, come check it out" posts now go to Instagram. They might still be auto-logging in, still responding to PMs on Facebook, still clicking a few news posts here and there, but that's just not visible on the outside, and creates the perception of Facebook the Ghost Town.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  Remember that you're probably in a bubble. Marketplace was incredibly popular back in the days when I was at FB, and I'd have expected it to get more popular based on the people I see around me (kids stuff is all over it). Maybe the gatekeeper thing is a reflection of less people in the EU using FB at all, rather than specifically Marketplace.
  - Sloowms 2y ago
    That bubble is the EU, which this law is about. I know a bunch of European countries have their own Ebay/Craigslist websites. Marketplace has never been even somewhat popular in my country.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      Yeah fair. I guess I forget that Ireland is now the largest English speaking country in the EU, so I guess I'm in a bubble. I am still really surprised that Marketplace is no longer big enough to count as a gatekeeper.
pyrale 2y ago
> the same rules would apply to EU native competitors .. if there were any. By this same logic, I guess we can say that the EU isn't trying to build a trade barrier favoring local competitors. So, while, as you say, > It's what's knows as a "non tariff trade barrier". ...It's also not that, since the goal isn't prevent them from competing equally in the market, where they have no competition.
Mindwipe 2y ago
I wonder if eBay's free listings is taking marketshare back?
- wackget 2y ago
  eBay's listings are no longer free. They are now extorting their pound of flesh via a so-called "Buyer Protection Fee" which forces buyers, rather than sellers, to pay extra when purchasing items from private sellers.
  - TrackerFF 2y ago
    Which is ironic, as both Ebay and PayPal tends to automatically side with buyer 99.9999% of the time in disputes.
  - TonyTrapp 2y ago
    eBay is very different across countries. In Germany, eBay listings are free again for private sellers after they noticed the exodus to other platforms. I know this is not the case in other countries, so talking about eBay as a general platform is very difficult.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
reissbaker 2y ago
"the same rules would apply to EU maybe competitors... if there were any." That can actually be an example of a tariff, though. Basically every country specializes in something, and imports things they're not good at making. For example: cheese, or luxury watches, or GPUs. If you have a special law that charges companies money only for the categories you import and you carve out exceptions for "small" (aka domestic) markets, a la the DMA, you have effectively created a tariff.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

drooopy 2y ago

I don't understand meta's statement that this handicaps american businesses while allows European and Chinese companies to operate under different standards.

pjc50 2y ago
The measures apply by size, not by country of origin. It happens that the companies over the threshold are American. So their statement is basically untrue, but that's politics these days.
- robin_reala 2y ago
  There are a couple of companies in the list[1] (of seven) that aren’t US-based. ByteDance are Chinese and Booking are EU (NL). [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
  - phatfish 2y ago
    Booking Holdings which Wikipedia has as the parent of booking.com seems to be US owned.
    - andsoitis 2y ago
      Yes. Booking Holdings Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, listed on the Nasdaq with principal executive offices in Connecticut. See SEC filing: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e58-3de2-41a6-a9fd-eb45b863b1e2.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e5...
    - xeromal 2y ago
      Had no idea booking.com was american. I always assumed it was euro-based.
      - dagw 2y ago

tossandthrow 2y ago

This is a result of the severe neglect to enforce anti trust in the US. Now other countries need to kick in with diplomatic adverse effects... sigh.

ENGNR 2y ago

Would looove to distribute an app without it having to be in the App Store, and not paying the App Store fee (direct download of signed binary). Happy to pay a yearly fee or fee per update to cover code review if it’s crucial. But 30% of revenue for doing bugger all… cmon, they’re squeezing the lemon a bit too hard.

intrasight 2y ago
From what I hear, users are tired of installing apps. You can make a website and not face any gatekeepers or restrictions.
- popol12 2y ago
  What if your app needs to send notifications and/or use bluetooth, for instance ?
  - intrasight 2y ago
    From what I hear, most users disable notifications. You can do like Airbnb and send text messages. You can do Bluetooth in JavaScript through the Web Bluetooth API.
    - Sayrus 2y ago
      A little caveat of Web Bluetooth API is that it's like WebUSB and mostly available on Chrome. I don't think Chrome for iOS is using blink yet so you'll probably not have access to this API on iOS.
      - madeofpalk 2y ago
        Both WebUSB and WebBluetooth is still a draft spec, and is doubtful to progress any further with both Mozilla and Webkit objecting to it https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#anti-fingerprinting https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#anti-fingerprinting Essentially, these are proprietary that are a part of an embrace, extend, and extinguish strategy by Google Chrome.

hadrien01 2y ago

Press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sunaookami 2y ago
Huh, so Facebook Marketplace is no longer designated as a Gatekeeper because it has not enough business users. -- Other related PR: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1086 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... This rules that the "Core Technology Fee" is de facto illegal.

izacus 2y ago

The EU Comission press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

robinwohlers 2y ago
It’s funny to see a “share this page on Facebook” option at the bottom of the press release.
- qwertox 2y ago
  Which shows that they're not discriminating. TikTok is missing, though.
- diggan 2y ago
  At least they seem to have their own system in place for displaying those share buttons, as there are no requests to 3rd party domains on page load, everything loads from *europa.eu. Could have been worse :)
- owebmaster 2y ago
  It shouldn't be funny, social media isn't doing the world any favor, they gotta behave
  - robinwohlers 2y ago
    “Not funny haha, funny weird”
- miohtama 2y ago
  EU comission has been fined for breaching GDPR they designed themselves https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/first-eu-court-fines-eu-breaching-own-data-protection-law-2025-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/first-eu-court-fines-eu...
  - bootsmann 2y ago

yupyupyups 2y ago

Apple should remove privacy from their vocabolary.

lopis 2y ago
They keep doing that to try to paint this as a loss for users. Users have much to win with this, as it will give some real competition to the Apple ecosystem, and potentially saving users money. So it's only natural Apple will pull all the cards like saying it threatens users privacy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

madeofpalk 2y ago

> Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. To me, this is the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after. It is unfair that Apple restricts Netflix from telling it's users that they can sign up and pay for Netlifx on their own website. It's unfair that Netflix can't even tell its users the rules that Apple enforces on them. It's telling that Gruber is pretty staunchly against EU/DMA interferance in Apple, and broadly thinks they're wrong. But this is the one thing he agrees on > If Apple wants to insist on a cut of in-app purchased subscription revenue, that’s their prerogative. What gets me, though, are the rules that prevent apps that eschew in-app purchases from telling users in plain language how to actually pay. Not only is Netflix not allowed to link to their website, they can’t even tell the user they need to go to netflix.com to sign up https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing https://daringfireball.net/2020/07/parsing_cooks_opening_statement https://daringfireball.net/2020/07/parsing_cooks_opening_sta... (I think Apple now has their 'reader app' carveout for apps like Netflix, but it's still pretty obtuse and inconsistent)

madeofpalk 2y ago
Also, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1086 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... > The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple failed to comply with this obligation [to allow third party app stores] in view of the conditions it imposes on app (and app store) developers. Developers wanting to use alternative app distribution channels on iOS are disincentivised from doing so as this requires them to opt for business terms which include a new fee (Apple's Core Technology Fee). Apple also introduced overly strict eligibility requirements, hampering developers' ability to distribute their apps through alternative channels. Finally, Apple makes it overly burdensome and confusing for end users to install apps when using such alternative app distribution channels. This is great to hear. It sounds like they've just found Apple non-compliant in making alternate app stores as discouraging for both developers and user as possible. I guess it'll take another 12 months for any fines or changes from Apple.

mentalgear 2y ago

A good start, but far from enough regarding the societal damage (anti-competitive, anti-user, psychological harm especially of minors, proliferation of radicalisation) they did.

1oooqooq 2y ago
*insert Mike Myers One Million Dollars meme they made more than the fine, so it's just reduced profit a little. mere higher cost of business and continue as usual.
- riffraff 2y ago
  The DMA fines are not supposed to be punitive damages, they're a tool to correct behavior, like the GDPR. If Apple & co don't comply there are higher amounts that can be imposed, but the idea is that the companies will comply before that.
- mdhb 2y ago
  The EU made a serious point that these are the first time they are issuing those fines as as such have capped them as a signal to show that they are serious but also that they aren’t taking the maximalist approach some in the US are accusing them of. They can legally go for 10% of global revenue if I’m not mistaken as the top level of fines and both Apple and Meta would be wise to not find themselves as repeat offenders as a result.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

JSR_FDED 2y ago

[flagged]

tiborsaas 2y ago
Because the fine is exactly about giving people a more fair chance to vote with their wallets. This is from the Yahoo article: "The EU competition watchdog said Apple must remove technical and commercial restrictions that prevent app developers from steering users to cheaper deals outside the App Store."
- zpeti 2y ago
  You can buy an android or huawei phone. Just because the ecosystem you like to use doesn't have certain features doesn't make it a monopoly.
  - boxed 2y ago
    Switching from one duopoly to another isn't choice.
  - ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
    You can leave the market if you dont like the rules of the market.
    - iwontberude 2y ago
      Consumers should have greater and greater access to markets with more favorable conditions. It’s not acceptable to have consumer hostile markets in many respects e.g. healthcare. It would behoove us as consumers to demand access to markets as mundane as cellular phones. Accepting market manipulation by oligopolistic companies to reduce choice and walking away from phone ownership altogether seems counter productive for everyone.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Setting aside that this is looking at the wrong side of the market like often happens in these discussions, what do you as a consumer do when Android or Huawei do something else that's a deal breaker for you?

jadams84 2y ago

[flagged]

throwwwwwawa 2y ago
[flagged]

llm_nerd 2y ago

> The EU fines could stoke tensions with U.S President Donald Trump who has threatened to levy tariffs against countries that penalise U.S. companies. Mark Zuckerberg, in his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, specifically noted this as his goal for falling in behind Trump. That Trump would be the big-stick man that would protect Meta and other cos from foreign interference. Where "interference" is anything restricting that American exceptionalism "do anything we want, however we want". Only then Trump started a trade war with quite literally the entire world -- aside from, predictably, Russia -- and now he holds, as he likes to say, no cards. The EU and anyone else can do whatever they want and Zuck and co can cry about the millions they wasted trying to buy a protection racket. Of course Meta could just withdrawn from the EU. I wish they would withdraw from Canada. Their garbage misinformation platform is a massive net negative for humanity and has offered nothing but harm for the planet.

xvector 2y ago
Most Canadian small businesses rely on Meta to get customers. If you think these companies don't add value, you are totally oblivious to the millions of small businesses that rely on these platforms to reach customers and niche audiences around the world.
- pjc50 2y ago
  They need a platform, but it doesn't have to be Meta.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      What is ugly or uncivil about noting someone's biases? The "your small businesses would fail without Meta" line is from the official lobbyist arm of Meta, and it's usually a pretty good tell that someone is a Meta employee and is thus likely to have a very rose coloured, idealized version of the org.

popol12 2y ago

I hope this will make Apple finally comply with EU law and allow app side loading on iOS. Real side loading, not the joke they implemented since iOS 17.

SanjayMehta 2y ago
I would not hold my breath. They are adept at malicious compliance. Cook will do a cost/benefit assessment and will come up with another workaround.
- londons_explore 2y ago
  The EU should instead set targets. Ie. "More than half of users have installed at least one app from a non-apple affiliated store by Jan 2026 or you shall pay a fine of $10 per month per iPhone in use in the EU".
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    That’s a terrible idea. How would they have any control over that. I think you are way overestimating the amount of iOS users that want to use software from outside the App Store.
    - rokkamokka 2y ago
      Agreed, the only realistic way they could hit such a target is to shut down their own app store...
      - 13_9_7_7_5_18 2y ago
        [dead]
    - londons_explore 2y ago
      If 3rd party stores didn't charge the Apple tax, I think you'd find plenty of apps moving to other stores, and within a matter of weeks more than half of users would have used a 3rd party store.

xvector 2y ago

[flagged]

pjc50 2y ago
They could equally make the whole thing subscription-only, but they're not going to do that.
stavros 2y ago
I'll be generous and assume you're being disingenuous by accident: This isn't about the ads, it's about the tracking. Meta is free to put ads wherever it wants, but it's not free to track people who don't want to be tracked. In the end, a population has the right to govern itself how it wants. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that - Meta is free to simply not operate in the EU.
- xvector 2y ago
  Why shouldn't you allowed to track people across your own services if users consent? If they don't consent, they are free to simply not use your services. Problem solved. There is no actual need for this law. No rights are being infringed on. Just don't use the website.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Because that's how we like it, and that's the end of it. The people of the EU have said that these are the rules for doing business there, and saying "I should be able to murder people in my own house, if you don't want to be murdered, just don't come here, there's no need for anti-murdering laws" is rather irrelevant.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > saying "I should be able to murder people in my own house, if you don't want to be murdered, just don't come here, there's no need for anti-murdering laws" The Americans call this "stand your ground".

xthukgko 2y ago

[dead]

p_ing 2y ago

Is this a fine the companies can appeal, or is this a final decision?

lekevicius 2y ago
They can appeal.
- zoobab 2y ago
  They will appeal to Court so that they win another 2 years.

tiahura 2y ago

[flagged]

rini17 2y ago

They called it on themselves. Were so greedy with access to unlimited capital, bought everything out or undercut with free. And now there are no EU competitors left to lobby for more favorable regulations.

iagooar 2y ago

The EU is using populist claims to introduce laws with ideological bias (big corp bad, America bad, America corp super bad). Everyone knows the digital act was never meant to be a fair set of rules, it was introduced to punish US companies at will. At the same time, most governments, public offices, agencies and businesses in Europe would not be able to operate normally without access to American software. The problem is that it is way easier to (over)regulate and tax, than to create a strong environment for business and innovation to thrive, in order to grow your own tech giants.

rini17 2y ago
The real problem was that Silicon Valley was flooded with capital and bought out all competitors. Or undercut with free. Or all kinds of other Microsoftlike practices. So nobody was left in the EU to advocate for better rules.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  If that is true, how come new competitors spring up all the time in Silicon Valley and other places in the US while the European sector lies dormant?
  - codingbot3000 2y ago
    That's just a US propaganda myth people can't stop parroting. The SV ecosystem is definitely better funded, but there is no lack of digital start-ups in the EU.
  - rini17 2y ago
    Consider what happened to Nokia. The first business blunder caused it to be sold to US and gutted. Now if someone else wants to make smartphones in EU, has to start from scratch. But if that happens to US company, everything(at least the IP) stays in the US.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago

HK-NC 2y ago

[flagged]

phtrivier 2y ago

> Apple faces a €500 million fine for breaching the regulation’s rules for app stores, while Meta drew a penalty of €200 million for its "pay or consent" advertising model, > The procedural fines fall short of the two giant penalties issued by the EU executive under its antitrust laws last year: €1.8 billion to Apple for abusing its dominant position while distributing music streaming apps, and €797 million to Meta for pushing its classified ads service on social media users. Really honest questions: are those fines actually paid, in practice ? Is there a way for a citizen to know ? (As in, do they appear in the public budget of the UE ?) Or are they somehow deducted from subsidies, added to taxes, etc... ? I know who collects taxes in France ("Le Tresor Public"). I don't know of a EU version of a treasury. Is it collected by one of the member states (Ireland, I would guess ?)

i_have_an_idea 2y ago
> somehow deducted from subsidies Do you think the EU subsidizes Meta/Apple.
- tomalbrc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    No. The EU subsidizes electric vehicles. Not the same thing.
    - vanviegen 2y ago
      It pretty much was the same thing for years.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  Not necessarily Meta, but it's very much possible that a large company is the recipient of both EU subsidies and EU fines :)
2y ago

mapcars 2y ago

> while Meta drew a penalty of €200 million for its "pay or consent" advertising model, which requires that European Union users pay to access ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram Wait, isn't pretty much all web content is like this nowadays? You have to buy youtube premium to avoid ads, how is it different?

tpm 2y ago
> You have to buy youtube premium to avoid ads Or you can block the ads in the browser for free. In this case, you have to consent being tracked (or pay) or otherwise the page will not display.
sussmannbaka 2y ago
It’s not about being shown ads, it’s about collecting (and sharing to third parties) private information that goes beyond the technically required amount to use the service. GDPR says companies need to get my consent in order to do that, that I am free to not give this consent and that a service can’t not be provided to me just because I don’t give this consent. Facebook and a bunch of other companies said “aha! We’ll just create a paid alternative!” but this doesn’t comply with the law. It just took a while to take this through the courts but if you read the law it’s clear they just stalled for time on this one.
- mapcars 2y ago
  Thanks for clarifying, it was confusing to figure that out from the article
blitzar 2y ago
Pay or have your information harvested and sold. Its extortion.
- jdminhbg 2y ago
  You’re missing a third option there, which makes it not extortion.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

WhyNotHugo 2y ago

US officials and businessmen keep on repeating the same thing: > The European Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards. But this is wildly untrue. The EU isn't hand-picking individual organisations and fining them because they're American, they're fining them because they're in breach of existing legislation. The same legislation applies to local companies. Ironically, it's the US who takes stances like the one they claim the EU is taken. E.g.: The US required that TikTok be sold, without actually proving that TikTok was in breach of any actual law. But repeating the same claims gets those claims out into the media, and that's what people hear. So we see a dissonance between what the media says (and many people believe) and what's really happening.

paxys 2y ago
US corporations are too used to breaking laws as they see fit and getting away with a slap on the wrist, so being asked to follow the rules feels like an attack to them.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  They're also very used to lobbying to get what they want, as soon as that's not possible, they have a tantrum.
- StressedDev 2y ago
  That is not my experience. Every US company I have worked in spent a lot of time training employees to follow the relevant laws. I have even been on teams which had to do work to comply with the European GDPR. The message I have always received is follow the law and don’t break it.
skyyler 2y ago
>So we see a dissonance between what the media says (and many people believe) and what's really happening. This thing right here terrifies me. The entertainment-information media oligopoly has a tight grasp on public conversations. It feels like a hydra that can't be defeated.

paxys 2y ago

> "This isn't just about a fine; the Commission forcing us to change our business model effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service." Meta complaining about getting tariff'd is objectively hilarious.

disgruntledphd2 2y ago
> the Commission forcing us to change our business model This is total, utter, complete 100% grade A organic nonsense. I worked at FB (but the same is true of basically all action driven advertising systems). Only a tiny proportion of users ever click, but they are incredibly lucrative for online advertising platforms. The whole subscription was a really transparent attempt to get people to accept the tracking and it's honestly profoundly depressing that this is what they're reduced to.
- immibis 2y ago
  Ads work even if nobody clicks. At least, old school ads. Sensible ads. Like Coca-Cola. I have no idea how these ridiculous online gaming things stay in business but I'm sure it's much stupider.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Did you buy coca cola because santa clause was drinking it or did you buy it because it was at eye level by the register in every store in America?
    - toast0 2y ago
      How do you think those drinks get there? Beverage companies are paying for shelf space. But, if you think ads for drinks don't work, take a look at Pepsi's Project Refresh of 2010, and what happened to their sales. TLDR, Pepsi took it's superb owl ad budget and used it to do community grants instead; sales dropped and a couple years later, Pepsi went back to advertising during the superb owl and stopped doing community grants.

samdung 2y ago

Breach. Get sued. Pay Fine. Rinse. Repeat. At this point it looks like governments want the money and companies are gleefully willing to pay.

xandrius 2y ago
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I get it that millions isn't much but it's something, and at least it sends a signal.
- squigz 2y ago
  Frankly, the whole "it's pointless, so this is stupid" response to some things is more tiring to me than anything. What exactly is the end-game for these people? All or nothing? That is just delusional. It is simply not how progress is made. So let's be appreciative of what little is done, and push for more? Not to mention the amount of people in here just focusing on the fine - by the way, I don't know how people can square the belief that these companies are endlessly greedy and will do anything for more money, with the belief that half a billion euros lost profit will just sit well with them - while completely ignoring the bit where these companies either comply or face even more fines.
switch007 2y ago
All in agreement behind closed doors with the EU bureaucrats

alexfromapex 2y ago

Millions is nothing for these companies. Just a cost of doing business.

xandrius 2y ago
Starting somewhere. The US ain't even doing that.
- switch007 2y ago
  Not really. If citizens see "fines" and think "whew, they got their just deserts", it's almost worse than no fines. But the EU is frequently performative, so it doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if they agreed in advance with the EU the fines, behind some closed doors. Nothing less than a billion these days even registers
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    It could look performative if you only look at citizens. From other businesses POV though - this becomes the final decision on this given behavior under the DMA. A precedent is set, that will guide any further enforcement. - it also sets a stake in the ground for other back and forth litigations: the EU will actually fine the companies. We can argue whether this amount is too low, but on any further fines the question will never be whether the EU will actually do it (compare to the current US tariffs situation and you see why this matters) - it's easier to expand to DMA adjacent companies as needed. If Bluesky ever had to be scrutinized, this would be a reference point.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

npc_anon 2y ago

The "EU over-regulation" argument is pathetic. The exact opposite is true, 2-3 decades of zero regulation has led to Big Tech empires that can get away with anything. It harms the free market, harms the freedom to compute, creates an asymmetrical extractive relation between mega-corp and average internet user, and omnipresent surveillance. It's anti-American if "American" still means a love of freedom, personal privacy and fair competition. But I do understand the "new" American perspective. These companies are money printers some of which produce as much as $30B of pure profit in a single quarter. If such companies are to exist, they best be American I guess.

xvector 2y ago
> The "EU over-regulation" argument is pathetic ... It's anti-American ... I do understand the "new" American perspective. "American" means being able to make your own decisions without government overreach in every aspect of your life. "American" means being able to decide if you want to engage with a business or not, without getting the government involved. "American" means being able to reach the highest highs or risk the lowest lows on the power of your tenacity and skill alone, without having the government shoot you down when you succeed, or put meaningless performative roadblocks in your way. "American" means understanding that the government is not your friend and it doesn't need to replace your own decision making capability or ability to make choices. From your dismissive sneering tone you do not understand the American perspective. Honestly, I am not sure the typical European even could. You have not grown up in our culture, so ideas like personal responsibility, self-reliance, and the American spirit are foreign to you - or at least heavily deprioritized. You simply sneer and scoff at these concepts. You do you - this is why the EU is three decades behind and totally, utterly dependent on foreign tech - yet still somehow convinced it could catch up "if it really wanted to."
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  > You do not understand the American perspective. Honestly, understanding the USA is a pretty high bar in this day and age.
- Bayart 2y ago

supernova87a 2y ago

Genuine question for debate: iPhone app store is a private club to which businesses can choose to belong, if they want to sell their product to certain customers. Membership in the club comes with the condition that you not talk about alternative ways to buy the same product, while selling via the club. Membership in the club is not a monopoly; there are many other channels through which to sell a company's products. Why is is against the law?

madeofpalk 2y ago
Because EU law says they have let others into their club.
- simondotau 2y ago
  Apple has always allowed anyone into their club. You have to pay dues and follow some strict (but non-discriminatory) rules, but the result was a place which people liked going to. Analogies aside, the REAL question is whether Apple is entitled to charge money for access to their developer APIs. Or whether Apple is entitled to place software license terms upon use of their intellectual property, e.g. when you link against Apple libraries which are then compiled into your binary. We get up in arms about GPL violations, but also want Apple to suck shit. I don't think it's right to want it both ways.
  - bitpush 2y ago
    What if the exclusive club had one rule for owner operator and another for rest of the folks? Would you say that's pretty discriminatory?
    - simondotau 2y ago
      If the club owner wants to have a fancy seat at the nicest table in the restaurant, that's not discrimination. It's their club. They built it. Everyone knows they built it, and they can think whatever they like about that fancy seat. If they want a similarly fancy seat, they can build their own club. (Analogies aside, while I understand their rationale, it was wrong for Apple to lump the likes of Spotify and Netflix within their in-app purchase umbrella. And I also find it hilarious how people think 30% is highway robbery when 10+ years ago it was widely regarded as a fantastic deal for developers.)

gorgoiler 2y ago

I met a member of an EU pact Who said: two vast and fruitful suits of law Prevail in the courts. Near them, in their acts, Half won, a shattered victory lies, whose maw And wrinkled smile, a sneer of bitter spite, Tell that its makers well those voters fed Which yet survive, in those politic corps, The lips that lied, the hearts that bled And on the cover these words, in bold, underlined “My name is Brussels, Home of Kings: Look on my rules, ye Mighty, and be fined!” No thing beside remains. Around the court Of that great parliament, in open plans, Aerons reclined The ever mighty FAANGs endure.

mleonhard 2y ago

From the article: > The EU regulator also dropped Meta's Marketplace's designation as a DMA gatekeeper because the number of users fell below the required threshold. The EU government explains this in their press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... > Today, the Commission also found that Meta's online intermediation service Facebook Marketplace should no longer be designated under the DMA. The decision follows a request submitted by Meta on 5 March 2024 to reconsider the designation of Marketplace. Following a careful assessment of Meta's arguments and as a result of Meta's additional enforcement and continued monitoring measures to counteract the business-to-consumer use of Marketplace, the Commission found that Marketplace had less than 10,000 business users in 2024. Meta therefore no longer meets the relevant threshold giving rise to a presumption that Marketplace is an important gateway for business users to reach end users.

mrankin 1y ago

Just once, I'd like to see one of these companies stand up for themselves and say, "Fine, we'll be withdrawing completely from your market." Ok, that's nonsensical, but it sure would be fun to see the politicians scramble.

silexia 1y ago

The EU has zero innovation and zero new big businesses because of crazy regulatory overreach and harassment that is solely driven by greedy politicians.