[HN Gopher] Google loses EU court battle over EUR2.4B antitrust ...
___________________________________________________________________
Google loses EU court battle over EUR2.4B antitrust fine
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 148 points
Date : 2024-09-10 16:46 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu)
| eldaisfish wrote:
| The relevant bit of the article:
|
| >The Court of Justice said Google's practice of favoring its own
| shopping search results over rival services "was discriminatory."
| The ruling can't be appealed.
|
| >Judges said that EU law forbids behavior that prevents "the
| maintenance or growth of competition in a market in which the
| degree of competition is already weakened, precisely because of
| the presence of one or more undertakings in a dominant position."
| diggan wrote:
| Gonna be interesting to see if Amazon also gets hit by this
| very same thing as they seem to push their "Amazon Basics"
| brand above competitors too in their "market place".
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| Might be a distinction here because Google doesn't actually
| sell the products whereas Amazon is the actual retailer.
| Google is promoting their link to the product -- potentially
| even over the exact same retailer's direct link -- to take a
| cut.
| nabla9 wrote:
| EU already hit Amazon in 2018 and Amazon settled in 2022 to
| stop pushing their own products above competitors using
| unfair tactics.
|
| (those rules only only apply to online shoppers inside EU)
|
| In the settlement Amazon is put into a probation for 5 years.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_.
| ..
|
| ---
|
| With respect to the marketplace seller data, Amazon commits
| to refrain from using non-public data relating to, or derived
| from, the activities of independent sellers on its
| marketplace, for its retail business that competes with those
| sellers. This would apply to both Amazon's automated tools
| and employees that could cross-use the data from Amazon
| Marketplace, for the purposes of retail decisions. The
| relevant data would cover both individual and aggregate data,
| such as sales terms, revenues, shipments, inventory related
| information, consumer visit data or seller performance on the
| platform. Amazon commits not to use such data for the
| purposes of selling branded goods as well as its private
| label products.
|
| In relation to the Buy Box Amazon commits:
|
| - to apply equal treatment to all sellers when ranking their
| offers for the purposes of the selection of the winner of the
| Buy Box;
|
| - and in addition, to display a second competing offer to the
| Buy Box winner if there is a second offer that is
| sufficiently differentiated from the first one on price
| and/or delivery. Both offers will display the same
| descriptive information and provide for the same purchasing
| experience. This will enhance consumer choice.
|
| Lastly, regarding Prime Amazon commits:
|
| - to set non-discriminatory conditions and criteria for the
| qualification of marketplace sellers and offers to Prime;
|
| - to allow Prime sellers to freely choose any carrier for
| their logistics and delivery services and negotiate terms
| directly with the carrier of their choice;
|
| - not to use any information obtained through Prime about the
| terms and performance of third-party carriers, for its own
| logistics services. This is to ensure that carriers' data is
| not flowing directly to Amazon's competing logistics
| services.
|
| The commitments would remain in force for five years. Their
| implementation would be monitored by a monitoring trustee who
| would report regularly to the Commission.
| diggan wrote:
| > Amazon settled in 2022 to stop pushing their own products
| above competitors
|
| Eh, I hope they re-investigate then because it still
| happens in September 2024, even inside EU.
| sitkack wrote:
| If you can document and publish, that would be ideal.
| diggan wrote:
| Just one quick example from Spanish Amazon:
| https://i.imgur.com/XnR6BrF.png
|
| Maybe a better example where the search is for "e-book
| color" and the listing for the Paperwhite doesn't match
| either "e-book" or "color", so it's not ranking high
| because it's matching the search terms well with the
| titles but seemingly because of something else:
| https://i.imgur.com/BoUjPPv.png
| nickff wrote:
| That item is the lowest cost of the options depicted, and
| has more reviews (which are proportional to sales) than
| the rest combined. I think most algorithms would put it
| on top.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Ah yes, the "ignore what I asked for, push me what sells
| the best" search algorithms.
| diggan wrote:
| The results for the search "funda" are all smartphone or
| tablet covers, or covers for laptop. Except for that one
| Amazon Basics product which is a cover/protector for
| hard-drives.
|
| That doesn't seem at least a tiny bit odd to you?
| nickff wrote:
| It has a lot of reviews, and the word "funda" in the
| title; makes sense to me that it would be at the top.
| diggan wrote:
| Below its ranking (scrolling, not visible in the
| screenshot) are products with exact same score + more
| reviews + "funda" in the title. Shouldn't those, by your
| understanding, rank above the Amazon Basic product then?
| nickff wrote:
| Maybe; depending on their age, the content of the product
| page (videos, comparisons, etc.), delivery time, and the
| rate at which those who see the listing purchase it
| (after searching funda). I am guessing that Amazon uses
| some sort of Bayesian+ algorithm to figure out what to
| list.
| vel0city wrote:
| Why wouldn't a Paperwhite return with "e-book"? And given
| the results it's way more reviewed and probably way more
| popular than the other listings there.
|
| And you searched what could be translated to "sleeve" or
| "cover". The hard drive sleeve has way more reviews and
| engagement than the rest, by a massive margin.
|
| I hate Amazon search for many reasons, but this seems to
| be a reach of examples. Show me an example where the
| alternatives have equal review counts but are pushed way
| below the Amazon listings or way more specifically
| excluding terms. If you had searched for an iPhone case
| and it returned a hard drive sleeve I'd think there was
| something funny going on, but not with these examples.
| diggan wrote:
| > Why wouldn't a Paperwhite return with "e-book"?
|
| The search is "e-book color", if a product doesn't
| mention "color" or similar in it's title, description or
| metadata, I don't expect it to show up. No other black
| and white e-readers seems to show up, only Paperwhite is
| the black&white reader that shows up.
|
| > And you searched what could be translated to "sleeve"
| or "cover".
|
| The search engine seems to think I'm searching for either
| a laptop cover or smartphone/tablet cover, as every
| single result on the first page are in those categories.
| Except, for the Amazon Basics one, which coincidentally
| also ranks highest.
|
| I'm not putting these out there as "This is definitely
| proof Amazon is fucking with the search rankings" but
| more like "These results don't really seem to match what
| I expect or what I get at other similar websites".
| vel0city wrote:
| > Paperwhite doesn't match either "e-book" or "color"
|
| > either "e-book" or "color"
|
| A Paperwhite most definitely matches "e-book". _Very_
| strongly.
|
| Most fuzzy searches have multiple weighting parameters in
| the algo. You're right, it doesn't match "color" very
| strongly, but the fact it has >7k reviews and "5+ million
| sold last month" compared to 31 reviews its match for
| "e-book" probably has a pretty _massive_ weighting. It 's
| probably 1,000x stronger in its natural weight in terms
| of overall sales and engagement to anything else related
| to "e-book". I mean, its 400, 50, 50, and an undisclosed
| amount sold last month compared to _five million_.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Paperwhites come in multiple colors...
|
| "color e-book" does not return a b&w Paperwhite in the
| first page, which disproves your assertion.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I feel like companies like Amazon are large enough that
| they will find other hidden ways to do the same unethical
| things. Their size is fundamentally a problem.
| tzs wrote:
| How about non-online stores? In the US many major chain
| stores have their own brands. For example in grocery stores
| Safeway has their Signature Select brand, and Walmart has
| Great Value. In electronics Best Buy has Insignia, and
| Walmart has Onn.
|
| Do major EU retailers do the same?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41499714
| nabla9 wrote:
| Not a dupe.
|
| You are linking to tax evasion case. This is antitrust.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It's easy to lose track of the number of times Google has
| been convicted of breaking the law.
| diggan wrote:
| Good thing there is a Wikipedia page helping us keep track,
| with only 3 sections so far :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...
|
| Edit: My bad, the above page is just Antitrust cases made
| by the EU against Google. All the litigation sorrounding
| Google has it's own Wikipedia category (!!) as it's so much
| at this point:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_litigation
| hinkley wrote:
| When the list of cases against you gets alphabetized, you
| might have a problem.
|
| > The following 35 pages are in this category
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| The articles and discussions are combined. There are already
| a number of threads. It's a dupe.
| lazyeye wrote:
| Good. Google is not your friend.
| sdwrj wrote:
| Yet another reason to stop using Google services.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| More like another reason to stop doing business in the EU.
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| Why not both?
| Trias11 wrote:
| Government racket. Expected by large corps. Probably some
| handshakes and kickbacks are happening behind the closed doors.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Handshakes and kickbacks would be what would happen if they
| hadn't been publicly fined.
|
| If anything, this is a counterexample to your comment.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I am very much against the type of regulations in the EU (or
| places like Brazil) that hurt freedom of speech or privacy of
| chats or whatever else. But I do support regulations to break up
| monopolies or remove other anti competitive barriers. We have too
| many large corporations that are so powerful that they are like
| governments. They distort our market but also our speech and
| politics and all that. Choice and competition is important. I
| think anti trust actions against Google, Amazon, Microsoft,
| Apple, Walmart, financial companies (JP Morgan Chase or
| Visa/Mastercard), medical industries, and others needs to go much
| further. And it can't stop at the EU.
| Ninjinka wrote:
| Alternate take: More concerning is the power of government.
| "They distort our market but also our speech and politics and
| all that."
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Powerful entities influence the world. The difference is that
| the government (in the EU) is ostensibly democratic and
| private companies are unaccountable optimization engines.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| No, the difference is companies have competition, and are
| not allowed to use violence to exert their will.
| hungie wrote:
| Ha.
|
| Companies collude to eliminate competition all the time.
| Or use tactics that make competition impossible.
|
| And don't use violence? Give me a break. Even small scale
| companies like Wizards of the Coast sent the fucking
| Pinkertons after someone for possessing a magic card. You
| think Amazon is out here existing violence free? You
| think Nestle's suppliers are making chocolate without any
| violence.
|
| Take off the rose colored glasses.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Violence is also too high a bar. A lot of bad things
| aren't violent but still damaging. It is more about the
| use of power.
| nicce wrote:
| The high competition is usually also the root of the
| evil, since they need to do things that other would not
| to get an advantage. Like using child labor somewhere.
| Create a solution for non-existent problem but then lobby
| some laws which will create this problem. There is no
| moral in public companies.
| renjimen wrote:
| Ever heard of the East India Company?
|
| Or a modern day example: https://ccrjustice.org/bowoto-v-
| chevron-murder-and-torture-n...
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| uhhh, in your example, a subsidiary of chevron paid _the
| government_ to attack protestors. I 'm sure there are
| small examples of companies actually conducting violence,
| but you should feel bad about yourself in that you
| couldn't even muster the effort to find something that
| disproved my point.
| hnbad wrote:
| If you're suggesting the government should not be able to
| exert violence because corporations aren't, I'm listening
| but I suspect you haven't thought this through.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> No, the difference is companies have competition_
|
| How did that competition between private companies work
| out for US hath system? Are Americans getting better bang
| for the buck? Are they getting faster internet at home
| due to competition between ISPs? Are Americans getting
| more paid vacation days due to the private market
| competition between employers? Why didn't competition
| between auto makers result in more efficient and less
| polluting engines until the EPA and EU forced them in the
| 80's? Did competition between food manufactures got them
| to eliminate lead and arsenic from food or was it
| government regulation that did it?
|
| Competition existing doesn't automagically prevent or fix
| monopolies, duopolies, price fixing and other anti-
| competitive behavior from private entities who have the
| power to shape the market in their favor. Do you know why
| all those things are illegal even in the US? Because they
| work. If it wouldn't work it wouldn't have been made
| illegal. Private entities can much more easily collide to
| screw over consumers than consumers can collectively
| unite to do anything about it themselves. That's why
| governments and regulations exist.
| rurp wrote:
| Elected politicians compete intensely with each other.
| Polling, focus groups, and pandering are common in
| democratic countries because people running for office
| want to do things that make voters like them. The system
| is far from perfect but you seem to be arguing that the
| government is free to use violence however it wants
| without consequence which is not at all realistic.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Not everything is democratic about the EU, since the top
| representatives are not elected by the people. Just like
| the United Nations is not a democratic organization. The EU
| president is not elected by popular vote, for example. She
| is appointed by the parliament, similar to how kings in the
| past were appointed by a council of lords.
|
| Edit: Corrected my error.
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| > She is appointed by the parliament, similar to how
| kings in the past were appointed by a council of lords.
|
| Do you ... not know what a parliament is?
| ahoka wrote:
| MPs are directly elected (you can literally vote for a
| single person in an EU election), they are not some kind
| of noblemen.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I guess I agree with both being a problem. Maybe the way I
| would put it is that once a company becomes large enough it
| is a lot like a government. For example, if a a few tech
| companies ban your speech, you effectively don't have a
| useful freedom of expression. Being able to yell on a street
| corner is not a good substitute if you are censored online.
| jsbg wrote:
| A government is by definition a monopoly. No company can
| become large enough to be like a government unless it has
| government backing. E.g. Walmart was feared to be becoming
| a monopoly by running smaller shops out of business and yet
| Amazon was still able to compete. Eventually someone else
| will outcompete both, as long as the government doesn't
| step in to protect them.
| baxtr wrote:
| Google is a monopoly. But this is simply because their product
| was/is so much better than the rest. Anyone can access bing
| whenever they want but not many people care.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| There are network effects and other feedback loops that make
| competition not possible. For example, by simply having fewer
| users, you get less information to train your algorithms. But
| in Google's case, they also have the network effect of
| running an advertising platform. This platform is hard to
| compete against in itself. And it provides funding that would
| otherwise potentially go to other players so that they can
| invest in search quality. Just a thought. I have not thought
| deeply about this so I would welcome other opinions.
| kuschku wrote:
| The best result for the consumer would obviously be the best
| maps integrated into the best search. That may end up apple
| maps or here wego with google search.
|
| It'd be perfectly fine for Google to allow choosing your own
| maps provider, or just using geo:// URIs so whichever maps
| app you've got installed handles location links.
|
| Through laws and treaties we've given the EU the duty to
| enforce this.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Yes anybody could use Bing, but they won't. That leads to big
| revenues for Google. Question now is, what Google does with
| those revenues. Do they invest in other markets where they
| otherwise can't compete to drive competitors out of the
| market? - Then they abuse the power they got.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| That is clearly not an abuse of power, unless we have to
| adopt the ideology that anything a big company does with
| their profit is an abuse of power. Would you be happier if
| all profit went to shareholders and none to investing?
| julienfr112 wrote:
| The question is not the monopoly by itself, it's to conquer
| other market by abusing it's power. If you own search and
| mobile os, without regulation, what could you prevent to own
| mobile service, then fiber, then delivery then car, then
| train, then whatever ?
| baxtr wrote:
| Who built ChatGPT again?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Microsoft's money?
| baxtr wrote:
| Exactly. It was not Google even though they had the
| monopoly on data.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| With initial research inputs by Google and their work on
| Transformer if I'm not mistaken.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Google was better for the five minutes that pagerank lasted.
| The only thing it's maintained since is being _no worse_ than
| the competitors, while being the default. In order to become
| and remain the default they use the profit they make from
| their old purchase of doubleclick, since ads are what make
| Google money, in order to bribe and buy competitors.
|
| There's no part of this that is good. Other than as a huge
| monopoly, they can afford to be huge on R&D, just like Bell.
| They still fail to make money on anything but ads, though, so
| it's not turning out as well as Bell.
| adamc wrote:
| There's all sorts of anecdotal evidence that google
| searches have gotten steadily worse, and google has stopped
| supporting parts of its search "API" that mitigated this.
| So they've been the market leader but haven't continued to
| improve search in any noticeable way.
|
| Sure, other search engines can theoretically compete, but
| it is an enormous mountain to get enough data to be
| competitive... and just being "as good" is not enough to
| get people to switch. So without regulation, google is
| going to exploit a captive market.
| iteratethis wrote:
| Yes, it's so much better that they pay Apple billions each
| year to make it the default search engine.
| baxtr wrote:
| This showcases Apple's monopoly not Google's.
|
| I believe even if Apple had chosen Bing instead most people
| would have changed the search engine back to Google.
|
| Just like with maps. Most people I know use Google maps on
| their iPhones even though it has been replaced as default
| map app a long time ago.
| iteratethis wrote:
| "I believe even if Apple had chosen Bing instead most
| people would have changed the search engine back to
| Google."
|
| If that is true then I guess Google really has too much
| money.
| cranium wrote:
| Noob question but who will get the fine money in the end? At
| least in the Apple case (also on HN frontpage) it's clearly taxes
| owed to Ireland.
| creesch wrote:
| > Fines imposed on undertakings found in breach of EU antitrust
| rules are paid into the general EU budget. This money is not
| earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States'
| contributions to the EU budget for the following year are
| reduced accordingly.
|
| https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en
|
| Also, because there are always people in these discussions
| commenting things they haven't given a single thought to. No,
| these fines do _not_ finance the EU.
|
| The EU budget is around EUR160 billion to EUR180 billion each
| year. Roughly 1% of the EU GDP, contributed by member states.
|
| Fines this large are the exception, not the rule. So fines do
| make up a very small portion of the overall budget.
| paulddraper wrote:
| This is a single fine for a single company
| creesch wrote:
| So?
| nine_k wrote:
| There are very few companies of this magnitude, and even
| fewer fines of this scale.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Not really knowing how any of this works, could Google just stop
| listing other merchant's stuff and be in compliance?
|
| Obviously it'd take a hit on search value but I don't really
| understand how rating their stuff higher is any different than
| having a product page in the technical sense except that they
| also list other people's products.
|
| So I'm not sure if this is due to their size and adoption or if
| it's because they are a search company that lists everyone's
| products.
|
| I really have no idea about this and no real opinion, I am just
| wondering if hiding other people's results would solve this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-10 23:01 UTC)