Google will on Wednesday be accused by Brussels of illegally abusing its dominance of the internet search market in Europe, a step that ultimately could force it to change its business model fundamentally and pay hefty fines.
Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, is to say that the US group will soon be served with a formal charge sheet alleging that it breached antitrust rules by diverting traffic from rivals to favour its own services, according to two people familiar with the case.
Could be a huge blow to Google – but at the pace the EU moves, this will take forever.
Maybe in ten years, we’ll see something.
Google should have plenty of time to maneuver around this.
Were’s the EU’s equivalent of Google ?
Google = US
Bing = US
Yahoo = US
DuckDuckGo = US
…
Seriously, EU should accuse US of monopoly and stop making business with them, if they really double dare.
I got dibs on geugle
I wondered how long it’d be before we got the tired old “The EU is just going after ${COMPANY} because they’re American!” trope. Second post in, well done. Your Woo! America! badge and cape are in the post.
In non-english languages.
How did making up a top ten list become something regulated by law? These result lists are just opinions, there is no right and wrong answer.
Can celebrities sue now if they don’t like their placement in People’s list of best actresses? Are restaurants going to sue Zagat’s because they were ranking 6th and they think they should be 2nd? Have we descended to the pathetic low of only a court being able to make up a top ten list?
These lists are Google’s opinion of what they think is relevant, period. It is an opinion. There is no right and wrong answer.
If the EU thinks it can make a better search engine it should build one and not mess with other people’s property.
PS – if you don’t like what Google does with your site you don’t have to be in Google. Just set up a robots.txt and Google will go away.
I guess the difference between the examples you give and this is that Google is the dominant player in search. If Google gives an opinion, it has huge ramifications. If they use this dominance to strengthen their position in other (non-search) areas, it will come under scrutiny.
ionsmirl,
Where did you get this from?
Sure, but the principal behind antitrust isn’t about avoiding google, but rather protecting free markets from being dominated by a single entity.
Search is just a top ten list; that’s all it really is. You give Google some search terms and then Google gives you back ten or so items that it thinks may interest you. There is no right or wrong answer here, it is just Google’s opinion of what they think you are interested in. It is like a word association test at a psychologist – there is no right or wrong answer.
This is where the EU’s logic is at fault. They think there is a correct answer in search when there is none. They don’t comprehend that the list is just an opinion. And of course Google’s competitor’s opinions are that free ads for their services should always be at the #1 spot in Google’s list.
So now the EU Commission is apparently going to have a court rule on how a top ten list gets built in the EU. And that rule is going to come down something like – 8 results that the user is interested in and give your competitors two free ads! I’m still waiting for Microsoft to include ads for Google on the Windows desktop background. And when will People magazine feature a free ad for US magazine in the 3rd spot on their celebrity list?
If you don’t like how Google builds its result list, just use a different search engine. I’m pretty sure your fingers are capable of typing ‘Bing’, it’s even shorter than ‘Google’.
Edited 2015-04-15 00:03 UTC
jonsmirl,
I understood what you said, it just doesn’t seem to be based on anything in the article.
But google hasn’t even been charged yet, where are you getting any of this from? What is your basis for concluding that the “EU’s logic is at fault”? It sounds like you’ve made up your mind even before hearing the details of the case (see prejudice).
Google’s near-monopoly has been responsible for squeezing the life blood out of many markets, including some of those that my clients are in. But even so, how can anyone have an informed & objective opinion on the merits of this specific case until we get more facts about it?
Articles about the EU charging Google with antitrust have been in the press for over two years now.
You can read all about it this Microsoft funded site, but you won’t find that mentioned anywhere. MIcrosoft has been paying EU lobbyists for years now trying to get this to happen.
http://www.fairsearch.org/
Edited 2015-04-15 00:50 UTC
jonsmirl,
Can you link to the specific article you wanted me to read?
Not sure about the EU, but unfortunately in US it’s typically true that the “wheels of justice” don’t spin unless there are corporate lobbyists involved.
Let’s translate their latest post:
U.S. Statement on Reported European Commission Anti-trust Action Against Google
The following is a statement attributable to Matt Reilly, U.S. Counsel to FairSearch.org:
“Reports of the European Commission’s action today to reign in Google’s anticompetitive tactics are welcome news. U.S. consumers deserve and demand the same level playing field. Newly-disclosed evidence and legal findings stemming from the FTC’s investigation confirm that Google’s dominance is dangerously threatening innovation, and stealing choice from consumers. While the EU is taking action, sadly U.S. consumers are left waiting.â€
Matt Reilly is a former top Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust litigator who served for five years as the head of the Mergers IV division and previously as Deputy Assistant Director for the Mergers I division.
—-
So this lawyer used to work at the FTC. But in the first sentence it says he is now an employee of fairsearch.org (which is owned by Microsoft). And apparently now this private citizen can state the US position on the EU announcement. ie he is implying it is the government position, but he doesn’t work there any more and who knows how long ago he quit.
So this newly disclosed evidence is the leaked FTC paper on the pro’s for prosecuting Google. Too bad the paper with cons didn’t also get leaked since the FTC chose not to prosecute.
And Google is stealing choice from consumer – it must have secret mind control that makes everyone type Google instead of Bing!
The only thing sadly left wanting is Microsoft’s desire to have a hugely profitable search business. And since they can’t out innovate Google they are back to their usual tactics of trying to out litigate and out lobby their competition.
jonsmirl,
Honestly, why should anyone in the EU care what an american org says, regardless of the group’s affiliations? It’s no basis for saying “the EU’s logic is at fault”. Unless you think that the EU is not doing this of their own volition as sovereign nations, then I just don’t see how the fact that MS-paid-cheerleaders exist has any bearing whatsoever on this EU case.
This is quite an oversimplification of how monopolies actually gain excessive control of markets. But never-the-less, in so far as antitrust goes, the goal would not be to get people to switch search engines, but to ensure that google’s dominant position in certain markets isn’t being abused to hurt competition in other markets. And in the context of antitrust, it’s much less clear that google are completely innocent. I think this case will be very interesting, to say the least.
Edited 2015-04-15 02:26 UTC
Except when Google decided that they are launching a new product and it’s just set to be the number one. Not because it’s a good product and people use it, but because it’s Google’s. That is dominant position abuse that hurts free market.
You could make the same argument about Apple. Apple used their name recognition from selling iPods to sell many many phones. Other companies cannot compete against the might of Apple’s brand. Therefore Apple is abusing its dominance of the mp3 market to muscle in and dominate (profits wise at least) the smartphone market.
At what point does having a piece of desirable real estate that you developed from _nothing_, in this case, a highly trafficked search portal, become something other than an investment producing its returns.
Microsoft wasn’t interested in search until Google made money from it. Yahoo wasn’t interested in search until they saw Google making money from it. Yahoo wanted the portal thing.
I don’t know how you can force Google to give up market share? Do you force them to redirect a certain percentage of visits to Bing? Do you force them to give incorrect or inappropriate results to make them look a lot worse than their competitors?
One of the beauties of search is that it is ultimately democratic. People know and use Google, and choose to use it every day. They are not forced to use it by their ISP, or by Google or by anyone else.
“Yahoo wasn’t interested in search until they saw Google making money from it”
hahahahahaha. You do realise that Yahoo was basically the nr. 1 searchengine before Google actually existed right?
They might have been, but they didn’t think they could make money off search. Which is why the search engine was embedded into their portal page (I know they had a more barebones search page, but hardly anyone used it).
Nobody is making money of of search. Google makes money of of advertising. Search was a way for Yahoo and Google to get people to their sites
Ridiculous thing to say. Or, I should add, distinction without a difference. Would Google make as much money as they are today without search. Heck no.
Google makes money off search because search is what drives advertisers to them. They can sell eyeballs to advertisers, and then only because they have search.
I really don’t understand your point. You are arguing that Yahoo and Microsoft weren’t interested in search and that “Which is why the search engine was embedded into their portal page (I know they had a more barebones search page, but hardly anyone used it).”
Well, here is what yahoo looked like on day one. I would say that search is the primary thing right there: http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo.com/
It wasn’t until 2 years later that this happened:
http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google.com/
And btw: MSN (now bing) had search as their first feature as well:
http://www.msn.com/Default.asp“ rel=”nofollow”>http://web.archive.org/web/19991127073840/