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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I won't talk about the merits of huge fines being an approach to solving competition, but from the inside I can see a few ways that the EU pale:
1. While the EU operates as a body for rule setting, the individual members are still highly autonomous in a way that doesn't compare to the types of collaboration that's possible across states in the USA. This is worsened by language divisi
ons.
2. Internally each country is trying to foster their country as the place to be to launch a "start up", but that fragmentation is almost certainly slowing down the formation of a European equivalent to silicon valley.
3. There isn't a competitive investment funnel to what's available in the USA and the USA benefits from "network effect" style advantages purely from being further down the road. So if someone in the EU has a good start-up concept, chances are they'll try to make it work with the big guns in the USA, or cash it out to a US entity.
4. The EU is incredibly shortsighted in allowing the sale of important tech companies to foreign entities (primarily US-based entities). Many of the bigger advancements of today started in Europe.
5. Similar to points 3+4, companies in the USA are often able to build more value with the IP they develop or acquire (on account of numerous factors including some inconvenient ones). So even when a EU start up has a good product it may not necessarily be as successful due to those factors.
6. The EU tends to write ambiguous legislation that is open to interpretation and at worst: intentionally vague. While some believe this is just trap setting for collecting fines, the consequence of vague rules is a loss of appetite to develop in that market. English speaking markets tend to have much more specific legislation and their governments are available to offer specific guidance. This is something that the EU lacks and a frequent complaint from the likes of Google et. al.
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.
36 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 65.1 ms ] threadThere 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.
Here’s a case where leaving makes sense: Google was hit with a literal bazillion-dollar fine in Russia.
> 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.
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.
I can't find any details about those past cases with regards to - did they actually ended up paying anything at all?
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.
1. While the EU operates as a body for rule setting, the individual members are still highly autonomous in a way that doesn't compare to the types of collaboration that's possible across states in the USA. This is worsened by language divisi ons.
2. Internally each country is trying to foster their country as the place to be to launch a "start up", but that fragmentation is almost certainly slowing down the formation of a European equivalent to silicon valley.
3. There isn't a competitive investment funnel to what's available in the USA and the USA benefits from "network effect" style advantages purely from being further down the road. So if someone in the EU has a good start-up concept, chances are they'll try to make it work with the big guns in the USA, or cash it out to a US entity.
4. The EU is incredibly shortsighted in allowing the sale of important tech companies to foreign entities (primarily US-based entities). Many of the bigger advancements of today started in Europe.
5. Similar to points 3+4, companies in the USA are often able to build more value with the IP they develop or acquire (on account of numerous factors including some inconvenient ones). So even when a EU start up has a good product it may not necessarily be as successful due to those factors.
6. The EU tends to write ambiguous legislation that is open to interpretation and at worst: intentionally vague. While some believe this is just trap setting for collecting fines, the consequence of vague rules is a loss of appetite to develop in that market. English speaking markets tend to have much more specific legislation and their governments are available to offer specific guidance. This is something that the EU lacks and a frequent complaint from the likes of Google et. al.