HN Reader

Going to pre-empt the comments that always pop up in these topics saying "Google/Meta/Apple will just leave the EU at this rate": Google still has around $20 billion yearly reasons to remain active in the EU. Talking Europe yearly net profit here, post-fine. No, they're not going to say "screw this fine, you can take your $20 billion per year, we're leaving!". The second that happens, shareholders will have Sundar's access revoked within the hour.

There is a number of countries where Google has to deal with large levels of protectionist barriers (not the EU, these fines aren't that) and they still operate there. Korea is just one example. Because there's still a lot of money to be made. China isn't a counterexample: Google stopped operating search in China because at that point there was not a lot of money to be made for them in search there.

Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it. This is like the 4th time they have gone to the Google bank demanding a $1B+ ransom.

And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene. I don't know how they expect competition to grow when they block all the sunlight in their tech fields.

If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.

Awaiting amusing tweets (truths?) from the american baby in chief

Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business.

As much as I like to see google getting fined, it's disappointing that this is happening over them screwing over ad partners when ads are all about screwing over end users in the first place.

.

I don't think this decision is wrong, I'm from the EU, and I think companies like Google have too much power anyway, but I don't like the ability of the commission to enforce things.

Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians.

I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system. It should be done by an impartial regular, or prosecutor or a court. This kind of system opens up the commission to political blackmail and threats from powerful states, it opens up for corruption, it opens up for uneven enforcement, and there's just no reason to have the system this way.

You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.

European Commission fines Google an amount equal to three Meta ML Experts signing bonus...

Can someone elaborate on the first accusation — "DFP favours AdX over rival Ad exchanges by e.g. informing it in advance of the best bid from competitors"? I'd be really curious to understand how it does this, like what information is actually shared that isn't also shared with other ad exchanges.

Penalties bases on income is a very good practice: it works this way in Finland.

Can it be that any Berlusconi pays, for a speed ticket, the same amount as ordinary people?

Its definitely not the first time google was fined by EU see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Goog...

I can't find any details about those past cases with regards to - did they actually ended up paying anything at all?

Nvidea has a market cap greater than ALL of Germanys stock market. They should figure this out instead of extorting non-EU companies.

I fully expect and won't blame the form of archery that will pursue this comment, but... Impulse must have its way once in a while.

With the unprecedented extrajudicial approach the US has recently taken against certain recreational boaters in the Caribbean, perhaps they will realize Google is far worse and apply similar tactics.

Lawsuits will never amount to anything. And they are taking over the world. And in my opinion, they're verifiably more hostile than any boater I've ever been made aware of, including people on jet skis.

With the very substance of reality dissolving before our eyes, and considering we may be but a twitch of a jingo fingertip away from nuking the homeless, why not?

What the US couldn't do, Europe just did ?

> The Commission has already signalled its preliminary view that only the divestment by Google of part of its services would address the situation of inherent conflicts of interest, but it first wishes to hear and assess Google's proposal.

aka, breaking a monopoly.

thanks god for Europe.

Just a note, in case anyone thinks this is an insufficient punishment:

> The Commission has ordered Google (i) to bring these self-preferencing practices to an end; and (ii) to implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has now 60 days to inform the Commission about how it intends to do so.

It is on top of ordering them to fix the business practices. They can always issue more fines if Google doesn’t comply.

IMO some of us here want to see these companies hurt. That’s a non-goal for the EU, they are looking for compliance, not vengeance or something silly like that.

It’s amusing to see how HN, notoriously pro-privacy and anti-ads seemingly dislikes this kind of news.

Very fair. Doing anything with online advertising, either as an advertiser or as a publisher, without it involving any of Google's platforms is nearly impossible.

I read this whole article a couple times and don't really u understand what was wrong here.

Google is using their own ad exchange to fill ads? Isn't that... Their entire business model? Does the EU just want more intermediaries to exist? At the end of the day doesn't Google still get to decide how much an ad is worth when someone searches 'car insurance'?

To me this reads like the EU should pass a law describing exactly what they want.

>For example, Google Ads was avoiding competing ad exchanges and mainly placing bids on AdX, thus making it the most attractive ad exchange.

I just don't know why Google couldn't do this. Is this an instance of if they just never used other ad exchanges at all no one would be mad? Like Google getting called a monopoly by requiring the play store to be installed on android phones, while Apple obviously does exactly this just on their own hardware?

Cost of doing business. If these fines are to have any teeth, they need to be of a magnitude proportionate to company size. Otherwise, they are more of a petty cash shakedown.

Very good: super good. Too easy to make business for monopolists.

I seriously do not understand how Microsoft made it so far not to experience the same.

chump change

Oh nice. I hope other countries follow suit. It’s quite a shame Google didn’t get Chrome divested from them in the US, would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web.