The EU fines Google $1.69 billion for bundling search and advertising
Google and the EU's European Commission are making all sorts of announcements lately. Fresh off the revelation that Google would implement a browser and search-engine picker in EU-sold Android devices, Google's advertising division is getting slapped with a fine next, to the tune of €1.5 billion ($1.69 billion). The European Commission's latest antitrust ruling says that Google's bundling of its advertising platform with its custom search engine program is anti-competitive toward other ad providers.
The particular wing of Google's advertising empire the Commission is concerned with here is "AdSense for Search." Adsense for Search does not refer to the famous ads above Google.com search results but, instead, are ads displayed in "Custom Search" results that can be embedded inside their websites.
Related: EU Fines Google $5 Billion for Android Antitrust Violations
Google Case Set to Examine if EU Data Rules Extend Globally
Related Stories
Google confirms it will appeal $5 billion EU antitrust fine
Google has confirmed the expected, that it will indeed appeal the record $5 billion fine that it was handed today by European antitrust regulators for abusing the dominance of its Android operating system.
The European Commission announced that it is fining the U.S. firm for "three types of restrictions that [it] has imposed on Android device manufacturers and network operators to ensure that traffic on Android devices goes to the Google search engine." [...] In particular, the EC has decided that Google:
- Has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
- Made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices
- And has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
The decision also concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search service, licensable smart mobile operating systems, and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
In a more detailed blog post, Google doubled down on its position to argue that Android has helped bring choice to the market by enabling 1,300 different companies to develop 24,000 smartphones, and bringing over one million apps to users.
Previously: Report: Feds Investigating if Google's Android Violates Antitrust Rules
EU vs. Google: Android Antitrust
EU's Leaked Plan to Punish Google for Antitrust Violations
Google's Next EU Fine Could be Even Bigger for Android Violations
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Google is going to Europe's top court in its legal fight against an order requiring it to extend "right to be forgotten" rules to its search engines globally.
The technology giant is set for a showdown at the European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg on Tuesday with France's data privacy regulator over an order to remove search results worldwide upon request.
The dispute pits data privacy concerns against the public's right to know, while also raising thorny questions about how to enforce differing legal jurisdictions when it comes to the borderless internet.
Source: Original source
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @12:08AM (4 children)
Google can do whatever they want, if you don't like it use Yahoo instead.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 22 2019, @02:08AM
Google CAN DO whatever they want, if the sheeple just roll over and allow it.
In the midst of the gun controversy, the gun grabbers like to proclaim that "civilized nations" are gun grabbing nations, and the remainder are "uncivilized". In regards to the internet, the US is still the "wild west", and the EU is the "civilized nation".
If Google enjoys it's position as the dominant player who can force it's views and desires on a captive audience, then maybe they just need to stay out of Europe.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @06:33AM (1 child)
Yep, Google can certainly do whatever they want, so can the EU in EU. If Google don't like it they can get the fuck out of EU - once their presence is gone the sheeps will use Yahoo or whatever is left.
See one can play that game too! Only you lose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @07:20AM
Google can just put servers in Brexitland and collect money for EU ads in Burgerland.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @11:36AM
As long as Google is operating in a country, it can only do what the laws of the country allow them to do, not more. And for EU countries this includes restrictions due to EU regulations.
Google is, of course, free not to do business in EU countries. But as long as they do business in EU countries, they have to follow EU rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @12:29AM (2 children)
1. Let $ORG do something illegal to benefit themselves
2. Wait awhile for it to be established.
3. Fine $ORG for some "reasonable" amount.
4. ???
5. Profit!!!
6. Repeat frequently as required to keep it a profitable venture.
I'm sure the EU officials are very busy people, not outright malicious.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @02:08PM (1 child)
One could say that it is the obligation of a company to research the laws of the country (or in this case trade union) they operate in. Fair trade and competition is fiercefully enforced in the EU and it can't be a surprise to anyone who wasn't born yesterday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @06:52PM
can i have a sip of your evidently delicious kool aid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @01:26AM
They found a pretty good one, about 10 billiion$ in 3 years, and this third year is only a quarter done.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday March 22 2019, @02:44AM (1 child)
A whole 1.7 billion, oh lordy however are they going to survive ... Oh right, it's Google. I'm not sure if they are just going to laugh or not.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/goog/financials [marketwatch.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arslan on Friday March 22 2019, @06:35AM
Not if it the fine keeps repeating and potentially goes up if Google keeps doing it.
A one off $200 speeding fine is chump change to most middle class folks, but if you have to pay every week...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @03:38AM (2 children)
Are they just milking Google?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @11:39AM (1 child)
The issue is that they have essentially a monopoly on search services, and they are using that monopoly to get people onto their ad platform.
It's really not that different to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Did you complain when the EU ruled against that one, too?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @12:50PM
I didn't care. Internet Explorer is the perfect browser to use to download Palemoon
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Friday March 22 2019, @04:26AM (2 children)
Sure would like our Congress tell AT&T and Verizon they can't require TV in order to get internet.
Seems the only way to get reasonable internet is HughesNet.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday March 22 2019, @03:39PM (1 child)
Saying reasonable internet and HughesNet in the same breath is crazy talk. At least go for some Fixed Wireless vendor or something like that.
https://www.hughesnet.com/about/how-it-works [hughesnet.com]
Speed of Light approx: 186,000 mi/s
Distance / Speed of light = .118
.118 seconds is 118ms, which wouldn't be terribly awful.
The problem is that's just to get to the satellite. The data stream has to travel the 22,000 miles back to earth to complete the connection.
118ms x 2 = 236ms
So, you're getting theoretical ping rates of 236ms, if you include latency at the switches/infrastructure, you'd be lucky to be making 300ms ping.
The only info I got from consumers/google was something like like 500ms+ ping rates as normal, with 1000ms+ as a matter of course.
Go with HughesNet, if you absolutely have no other choice, or you literally don't care about anything that may require a decent connection. Such as, VoIP, Gaming, or VPNs (These won't work well, or possibly at all). It should still work okay with most other uses such as web browsing, and watching videos (due to a wonderful thing called buffering).
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @06:36PM
This is why I am (impatiently) waiting for StarLink. Low-latency, non-cable-co internet. Wireless is kinda scary, but when the NSA has all the wires tapped in the first place that hole doesn't seem to matter so much.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday March 22 2019, @05:10AM (1 child)
Uh, what?
Doing a quick search, AdSense for Search is a script that websites can add to their own site search page to show ads using Google's algorithms for targeting ads.
So the EU is fining Google for being anti-competitive for not allowing other ad providers to use Google's ad targeting algorithms. How in the blazes is this anti-competitive? Is Google obligated to create an ad provider marketplace where other ad providers can compete for the right to display ads using Google's AdSense?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by arslan on Friday March 22 2019, @06:39AM
This is for stuff happening before 2016. So the current offering is not the issue - hence whatever you're reading about, unless it is about the offering prior to 2016, it probably isn't the one that's being slapped with the fine.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday March 22 2019, @03:44PM
Corrupting your search. I'm quite happy for google to keep paying an annual $1.69 billiion fee to the EU, if they insist on keeping up the deplorable practice. Maybe, they'll get the hint and drop it altogether, but I would guess they'd only fix it for the EU. Gotta keep that sweet Ad Revenue coming in.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @07:57PM
Read WTF this is about before your "learned opinion". You all sound like idiots. This is about Google telling their customers (3rd party websites) that they cannot put another network's ads on their sites.
You can't use your monopoly in one area, search, to impose monopoly in another area, ads on people's sites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @11:18PM
This is what I do for search. There are as far as I know two acceptable websearch databases. Yhat of Bing and that of Google. I use Ecosia.org for the Bing database (and plant a frickin' tree too) and I use Startpage.com for access to Googles database. At both sites I can get results for websites, images and videos without using Javascript or being in direct contact with Google or Bing. Hey, I'm still dependent on their database, but the database is not my problem with Microsoft or AlphabetGoogle. On startpage even the thumbnails are served from their 1st party domain, while on Ecosia I do have to connect to Bing servers for the thumbnails.
These websites have bought an API search service from Google and Microsoft. "Custom Search" in Googles case.. and it's probably Startpage who complained about Google to the EU ;)