Have to pay for the failing states somehow.
 
It's time the EU is abolished. Britain is leaving, Spain and Italy are failing, Greece is a financial disaster, France and Germany are becoming a refuge for terrorists and the Eastern European countries (aside from the gullible Ukrainians) already know the whole system is a colossal joke.
 
It was a bad day...someone else must pay.

 
I agree, it should be abolished.

First of all Google can pursue their case in courts and appeal. Secondly, Google did break EU antitrust rules and they had more than enough time to resolve the problem before the ruling.

rjohnson11
Secondly, Google did break EU antitrust rules and they had more than enough time to resolve the problem before the ruling.

I'll shed no tears over the EU's anti-trust policies. It is a toxic entity within which chaos thrives. This is just another payday the likes of which Europe's true citizens will never see.

bcavnaugh
OK EU antitrust what about US antitrust?
Sometime I feel EU is trying to take over the World.
PS I know you live over their and I have friends over their as well that hate the EU so it not only me.
(2.42 billion Euros) They are hurting for Cash is how I see this and want a US Company to Bail them out.

US antitrust does not apply in the EU. Looks to me that you are suggesting that we apply US laws in Europe (and any other place, I guess) and at the same time saying that Europe wants to take over the world. Wouldn't that be letting the US take over the world?

redleader00

bcavnaugh
OK EU antitrust what about US antitrust?
Sometime I feel EU is trying to take over the World.
PS I know you live over their and I have friends over their as well that hate the EU so it not only me.
(2.42 billion Euros) They are hurting for Cash is how I see this and want a US Company to Bail them out.

US antitrust does not apply in the EU. Looks to me that you are suggesting that we apply US laws in Europe (and any other place, I guess) and at the same time saying that Europe wants to take over the world. Wouldn't that be letting the US take over the world?

No Not At All, And You Have It Backwards.
"Sometime I feel EU is trying to take over the World." It Clearly States EU and NOT US.

ty_ger07

redleader00

ty_ger07
My opinion: If European customers want to use a Google service, they should accept the way Google lays out their service and the services they offer. Don't like it? Use a different service.

This is another petty cash grab. Why doesn't the EU go after the mom and pop companies when they do much worse things? The money.  The EU acts like they are being moral and ethical and fighting for the protection of the people.  But are they?  They aren't when it appears to be that the sole decider of whether they fight against a company over a stupid rule depends on how much money they could stand to gain.

US has antitrust rules too, and US politicians make them as they want. It's not fair to only criticize EU politicians for doing the same thing that everyone else is doing.

Is Google being charged in the US for violation of US antitrust laws in this matter? No, not at present.

If you live in France and you visit a website from Cambodia, you can't take them to court because they aren't following a local France peace-to-mankind rule. You can't say, "If they aren't going to follow France rules, they must block France citizens from accessing their Cambodia website or face France lawsuits". If you are offended by the Cambodian website, take a hike.

Rubbish.

I understand enforcing these kinds of antitrust laws on software, hardware, or products which are puchased or owned, but applying them to property you don't own and don't pay for to use by accessing it through the internet, pathetic!

I am glad that Google is fighting this fine. Hopefully they can set the EU ligitators straight.

That doesn't work like that. If you got a legal site in Cambodia (lets say a child porn site, or whatever) that is illegal here in the EU, the EU can go after you for selling it here. Maybe they can't get their hands on you, but if the person responsible came here on vacation and was recognized, that person would be detained and sent to a court. It's not that the states are not trying to catch the person, its just that they can't for the moment.
 
Same happens with Google or any other company or person. I bet the US does the same with people sending drugs to US from South America, for example ...
 
 

ty_ger07
Selling child porn in Cambodia is quite a different thing than recommending online retailers from a US company. I don't know how you could even make that comparison with a straight face.

Wouldn't it be cool if a bunch of US-based companies just blocked their website access to you hurt-feeling Europeans? That would be payback; except you would probably then try to sue them for discrimination. No more YouTube, no more Facebook, no more Twitter. Just because you get butthurt and fine a company you choose to use billions of Euros because you don't like the retailers they recommend. Maybe I don't like your antitrust laws. Can I fine you billions because I don't like your laws?

I kind of was thinking the same thing in 2000 with the Microsoft lawsuit. If the United States did try to break up Microsoft what would stop them from moving like 180 miles north into Canada who I am sure would be very happy to have Microsoft paying taxes.  I mean what would the United States do just not import Office and Windows? Like that would have been an option.
 
As for this lawsuit it will be in courts for years. Odds are it will be settled for much less as Google would never pay that much. When you consider that it's cheaper to spend $1 million a month for the next decade to keep this in court then to pay out you can see how it will work and Google could do some good investments with $2.7 billion over a decade.

Funny how this can happen with a Free Service.
 
The European Commission has fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.
 
It would be cheaper for Google if they Pulled out of the EU and the Countries that are under them.

ty_ger07
Yeah, I think it is crazy that someone can impose such a fine on a free service which any user can choose to use or not use. It's not like a user doesn't have their own choices to make. How can you fine a company regarding the optional choices they offer to users to use by their own free will? Seems quite backwards.

+1

ty_ger07
Yeah, I think it is crazy that someone can impose such a fine on a free service which any user can choose to use or not use. It's not like a user doesn't have their own choices to make. How can you fine a company regarding the optional choices they offer to users to use by their own free will? Seems quite backwards.

Welcome to the world of millenial entitlement emboldened by rampant liberalism.

ty_ger07
Yeah, I think it is crazy that someone can impose such a fine on a free service which any user can choose to use or not use. It's not like a user doesn't have their own choices to make. How can you fine a company regarding the optional choices they offer to users to use by their own free will? Seems quite backwards.

-1 You can have a free service so long as you don't break the law and that is what Google did. The problem here is that Google put its own shopping comparison first ahead of anyone else regardless of actual search results. That's an abuse of the dominant position in the market.  

rjohnson11

ty_ger07
Yeah, I think it is crazy that someone can impose such a fine on a free service which any user can choose to use or not use. It's not like a user doesn't have their own choices to make. How can you fine a company regarding the optional choices they offer to users to use by their own free will? Seems quite backwards.

-1 You can have a free service so long as you don't break the law and that is what Google did. The problem here is that Google put its own shopping comparison first ahead of anyone else regardless of actual search results. That's an abuse of the dominant position in the market.  

Really, I still can't fathom any bit of that logic. You guys must drink a different drink over on that side of the pond.

In my opinion, Google.com has the right to display any amount of Google.com-affiliated content. In my opinion, every search result could be only Google-related content and that would still be perfectly acceptable. You should be thankful that EVGA.com or any other site even appears on Google's search results, in my opinion. If Google.com displayed only Google-affiliated content, most people would stop visiting their site and it would work itself out naturally. Clearly Google has struck a good balance of Google-affiliated versus non-Google-affiliated content if they are remaining so successful and popular of a search engine. Who are we to measure or judge their search results by any measurement other than the measurement of our preference to use their service? It is GOOGLE.com after all, and YOU chose to go to google.com, and YOU choose to search something there, and YOU chose to click a link there, and YOU chose to buy or not buy some search suggestion displayed. Quit suing/fining frivolously, quit standing behind the bigger bully (EU), and take ownership of your own life and your own choices. The EU wants the money; stop standing up for their idiotic logic and fines. Do you really appreciate the EU treating you like you are so powerless, defenseless, and stupid that you need them to protect you from yourself? It's not true that Google has a search engine monopoly and it's not as if you don't have your own free will.

So, how about EVGA.com? I don't see enough ASUS image banner advertisements here. Time to sue. EVGA is asserting its graphics card market dominance onto the users of this forum and is not properly representing ASUS as an alternative choice. I don't see any difference in such flawed logic.

Vimeo.com doesn't have enough embedded YouTube.com videos. Sue.

Just repeating "it's illegal" and "it's the law" doesn't negate the fact that it is an utterly stupid and socially indefensible law when stretched so far to be applied in this manner. Which brings us back to ask about what you guys are drinking over there.

Wait, so Google is being fined for sponsored content? How does that manipulate the market? I would hope people know the shopping results are ads / sponsored content. iirc they do specify that it is.
 
I'm also wondering what they're expected to do to "fix" the issue with the EU, or if they're just expected to buck up. Would they change it for their European sites, or have to get rid of the feature completely or ban access from the EU? The court ruling that it's "up to Google" is kind of ambiguous.
 
I'm kind of confused as I don't really know much about Europe's anti-trust laws, and I personally don't see anything wrong with what Google did.

gipothegip
Wait, so Google is being fined for sponsored content? How does that manipulate the market? I would hope people know the shopping results are ads / sponsored content. iirc they do specify that it is.
 
I'm also wondering what they're expected to do to "fix" the issue with the EU, or if they're just expected to buck up. Would they change it for their European sites, or have to get rid of the feature completely or ban access from the EU? The court ruling that it's "up to Google" is kind of ambiguous.
 
I'm kind of confused as I don't really know much about Europe's anti-trust laws, and I personally don't see anything wrong with what Google did.

maybe it is just me misunderstanding, but I THINK,
google is being fined for
placing it's own advertising ahead of others paid advertising.