EU mulls €3bn fine for Google

And it could just be the start

The European Commission may impose its largest ever fine on a company for misbehaving - and for Alphabet's Google, it could just be the start.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that the Commission is considering a fine “in the region of €3bn” for Google’s anti-competitive search practices - or around half of Google’s European income.

This dwarves the largest antitrust fine the Commission has imposed so far, the €1.06bn imposed on Intel in 2009. Intel was judged to have paid OEMs not to sell computers with rival AMD’s chips inside.

The fine results from an investigation into the giant’s search practices, which the Commission began in 2010 and concluded in 2012. Google’s search results page is both a “neutral” platform and a shop-window for its own services. Google was accused of destroying competition by demoting results in its “organic” search to promote its own products.

Google then spent three years trying to reach a backroom settlement with former trade union economist and Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia to fend off a formal Statement of Objections from the Commission. The original complainants in the case argued that Google’s proposed remedy was worse than the behaviour to which it had originally objected, since it provided Google with an income stream for what rivals claimed was anti-competitive behaviour. Competitors would now have to pay to be seen, and market-testing of the proposed changes show Google’s dominance would have been strengthened by the “remedy”.

Google’s strategy failed to impress Almunia’s successor, and the new Competition Commissioner, Margaret Vestager, duly filed an Statement of Objections last year.

Vestager opened a new front last month by alleging Google illegally leveraged its dominant position in the market for mobile operating systems to promote its search monopoly.

It isn’t illegal to have a monopoly - or even several monopolies, which is what Alphabet enjoys. But it is illegal to use them to stifle competition in the market.

Microsoft ultimately paid more to the Commission in fines than Intel, but much of that came from penalties for non-compliance, which exceeded the original fine for anti-competitive behaviour. Microsoft was the first company in the European competition commission’s 50-year history to receive a fine for non-compliance.

Microsoft dropped its complaints against Google in Europe last year. ®

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading
  • Meta hires network chip guru from Intel: What does this mean for future silicon?
    Why be a customer when you can develop your own custom semiconductors

    Analysis Here's something that should raise eyebrows in the datacenter world: Facebook parent company Meta has hired a veteran networking chip engineer from Intel to lead silicon design efforts in the internet giant's infrastructure hardware engineering group.

    Jon Dama started as director of silicon in May for Meta's infrastructure hardware group, a role that has him "responsible for several design teams innovating the datacenter for scale," according to his LinkedIn profile. In a blurb, Dama indicated that a team is already in place at Meta, and he hopes to "scale the next several doublings of data processing" with them.

    Though we couldn't confirm it, we think it's likely that Dama is reporting to Alexis Bjorlin, Meta's vice president of infrastructure hardware who previously worked with Dama when she was general manager of Intel's Connectivity group before serving a two-year stint at Broadcom.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022