European Commission Fines Google in €2.42 billion for Antitrust Violations

[cdawall]

If you are in a global search engine it must show global hits and not only its own.

Google is a search engine first all other products are after that. So if I search price comparison websites it must show me the most searched ones, or the most viewed ones and not its own first. People need to differentiate product lines.





Its not because they are the biggest search engine its because they have to be impartial as a search engine and not hide better results for what people search.



People using Google expect neutrality and impartiality.



Steam a monopoly? How do you figure? Ever heard of Origin?

Developers choose to use steam. I see no Monopoly. It is the most reliable digital distribution service....



Actually Google has the requirements to show you the best results it can find not the ones they are interested in, hence, the lawsuit...

When Microsoft included Internet Explorer in the Windows before 10, a lot on services only ran on Internet Explorer. It meant an Operating System was not allowing you to use the programs you wanted.



Its not a problem of sponsoring things. its a problems of burring better results for your searches to promote their other products. And Google has a Commitment to give you the best results they find.

First Google link for price comparison web page.

And this is after an ad for not Google. So what Neutrality issue are you seeing?

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Good grief people.

I've never used Google shopping as the main local alternative is so much better, but ... Google manipulating any search result is bad. I don't see how that is hard to understand, and I absolutely do not understand why people are lenient to Google in this case, and only this case. There are many reasons to be wary of them - and those reasons comes up in any Google related discussion - , but they are above this somehow? I don't understand people.

Its not just google..even if MS did this I wouldnt bat an eye

But at this point Google is not BMW, they are the roads carrying you there.

who forced you to use google.com? or not type pricegrabber.com into url?

Wouldn't that same logic favour things like anti-Net Neutrality? Would you favour that your ISP can discriminate certain traffic because you're using 'their road'?

ISP is an actual road....a website is not..... Wow...fail much?

 

[Frick]

But it's a private road. Google has no requirements to show you anything. It is a private company if all they want to do as a business is show pictures of fuzzy hand cuffs than they can do that. You cannot get angry at a private company for displaying what they want and what helps their business on their web page.

A private road everyone is using. I honestly don't see the difficulty to understand. Sites generating revenue live and die by Google. Google has a lot of services, and they are a de facto monopoly. How is it to much to ask of them to be fair and not push down results leading to their competitors in other spaces, because that is what it means when they push up their own services? And you don't go to microsoft.com and ask about Linux, you go to bing.com. What would happen if you went there and searched for "Ubuntu live" and the first three results were "X reasons Windows 10 is the best OS ever made"-articles made by MS?

Sure, it could just be that Google was better at it, but I kind of doubt that. They are definitely not gods who automagically makes better stuff than anyone else but they certinaly is in a position to push that tale and strongarm anyone they compete against ... because their most basic sercice is the tool that takes people to those products. It is most defintiely a conflict of interest, and we only have a slogan ("Don't be evil") to trust them by.

Honestly I'd love for Google to prove they don't abuse their power in court.

Edit: @HopelesslyFaithful This applies to your post too, parts of it anyway.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

A private road everyone is using. I honestly don't see the difficulty to understand. Sites generating revenue live and die by Google. Google has a lot of services, and they are a de facto monopoly. How is it to much to ask of them to be fair and not push down results leading to their competitors in other spaces, because that is what it means when they push up their own services? And you don't go to microsoft.com and ask about Linux, you go to bing.com. What would happen if you went there and searched for "Ubuntu live" and the first three results were "X reasons Windows 10 is the best OS ever made"-articles made by MS?

Sure, it could just be that Google was better at it, but I kind of doubt that. They are definitely not gods who automagically makes better stuff than anyone else but they certinaly is in a position to push that tale and strongarm anyone they compete against ... because their most basic sercice is the tool that takes people to those products. It is most defintiely a conflict of interest, and we only have a slogan ("Don't be evil") to trust them by.

Honestly I'd love for Google to prove they don't abuse their power in court.

Edit: @HopelesslyFaithful This applies to your post too, parts of it anyway.

A road: is a thoroughfare, route, or way on land between two places that has been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by foot or some form of conveyance, including a motor vehicle, cart, bicycle, or horse.

One can say a fiber optic cable connecting two networks is a road. Or some program connecting websites or something. Google does nothing with being a search engine that acts as a connection blocking people.

Your argument is 100% baseless because it is factually wrong.

No one forces you to use google. Not using google does not prevent you from doing anything on the internet. Not using google just means you dont use their services that are independent of the rest of the internet.

No where are you required to use google to find a website or connect to a website. You can use any of 50 plus different search engines or type the url directly.

Your argument is devoid of everything except being patently false.

I don't care how many times you say a road it doesn't make google a connection that blocks you from doing something. Google is not a required portal or connection or fiber cable.

You are in no way required to you google to access anything on the internet.

A monoply also requires no alternatives. Microsoft can be considered a monoply since OSX and linux blow since they dont support 99% of all programs ever made.

Just because everyone uses google because ti is better or they are lazy doesnt make it a monoply...again a patently false assertion.

You can use bing, yahoo, ask jeeves, duck duck go, or any of the other 10s or 100s of search engines that still exist and will probably always exist.

https://www.reliablesoft.net/top-10-search-engines-in-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
^^^
plenty of options and their will always be options. If google purposely booggered their search engine to hawk their stuff people would leave and use a better one.

 

[R0H1T]

I'm with Google on this, having said that people calling it EU's socialism tax or whatever have obviously no idea what unchecked capitalism does to you ~

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2...rst-industrial-disaster-30-years-later/100864

Compare this to the 1000x payout BP had to contend with over an oil spill, with a ton of fake claimants they had to pay, obviously human lives cost far less!

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318375-bp-pushes-back-at-gulf-oil-spill-settlement

 

[Jozsef Dornyei]

Monopoly is usually not allowed anywhere in the civilized world. In case of a monopoly what cannot be broken up the laws are a lot stricter as with regular corporation. Google did know that he achieved monopoly status and should obey stricter laws but decided no to do so. Now paying the price. In the US google simple bought political power through lobbying. This is a lot more difficult in the EU. (Not impossible - look what Mr. G. Soros does) Now Google needs to pay the fine. Simple. VW had to pay for cheating so does Google.

 

[Frick]

A road: is a thoroughfare, route, or way on land between two places that has been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by foot or some form of conveyance, including a motor vehicle, cart, bicycle, or horse.

One can say a fiber optic cable connecting two networks is a road. Or some program connecting websites or something. Google does nothing with being a search engine that acts as a connection blocking people.

Your argument is 100% baseless because it is factually wrong.

No one forces you to use google. Not using google does not prevent you from doing anything on the internet. Not using google just means you dont use their services that are independent of the rest of the internet.

No where are you required to use google to find a website or connect to a website. You can use any of 50 plus different search engines or type the url directly.

Your argument is devoid of everything except being patently false.

I don't care how many times you say a road it doesn't make google a connection that blocks you from doing something. Google is not a required portal or connection or fiber cable.

You are in no way required to you google to access anything on the internet.

A monoply also requires no alternatives. Microsoft can be considered a monoply since OSX and linux blow since they dont support 99% of all programs ever made.

Just because everyone uses google because ti is better or they are lazy doesnt make it a monoply...again a patently false assertion.

You can use bing, yahoo, ask jeeves, duck duck go, or any of the other 10s or 100s of search engines that still exist and will probably always exist.

https://www.reliablesoft.net/top-10-search-engines-in-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
^^^
plenty of options and their will always be options. If google purposely booggered their search engine to hawk their stuff people would leave and use a better one.

Yes well, it is academical. Google is the de facto search engine, no matter how you spin it. It's just the way it is. Ask w1z if he'd be fine with TPU only being found through Bing. It's gotten so bad - if you will - that people don't search for things, they google dor things.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Every search engine is manipulated.

This. Personally I don't use Yahoo, since all the first result are Yahoo this, Yahoo that, Bing is almost the same, any other viable alternatives? None. Personally I buy from Amazon, Rakuten or E-Bay and that's that. EU is DEFINITELY for a money grab.

 

[Diverge]

This. Personally I don't use Yahoo, since all the first result are Yahoo this, Yahoo that, Bing is almost the same, any other viable alternatives? None. Personally I buy from Amazon, Rakuten or E-Bay and that's that. EU is DEFINITELY for a money grab.

I agree. Notice how they only go after the most successful companies. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I always sided with them with that stupid browser lawsuit. It's their OS, they can bundle whatever other products of theirs with it. Just like every other OS bundles stuff.

Don't like it, don't use it.... but wait... I need to use windows because all corporations use windows, and windows has all the best programs, etc.... so Windows becomes a monopoly by the choice of consumers and corporations... and it becomes so popular that no one buys other competing products... then it becomes MS's problem, and then they have to do what others tell them to do with their product... This makes no sense to me.

The same can be said for Android. 5+ years ago android was nothing. Over time, as android became more popular, people became tied to Google's apps (Play store, Gmail, etc). Eventually Google put requirements on OEMs if they wanted to bundle Google's services with their phones. No one was forcing them to install Google's services, and they could just create their own app store, or install their own competing apps. But people who have invested time and money into Googles services want it, so they need it. So they either need to agree with Googles terms, or take a hike. Some have tried to sue, claiming anti-competitive practices... But it seems pretty fair to have requirements to use someones service. That pretty much applies to most things in life.

 

[TheMailMan78]

@Frick Basically what I am seeing here is the big difference in European ideology and American ideology. Obviously I am not going to go into which I think is correct as I am biased. With that being said people attacking or defending Google it breaks down pretty simple.

Europeans from my experience have a direct and emotional bond with their ruling government. They may bitch and complain about one party or another but, in the end the only "G-d" they worship is their own bureaucracy and what it can do for them. This is why they are ok with gun control and heavy individual regulation. Things that are very taboo in the US. Is this wrong? Nope. Its their nation and how they choose to run it. It works for them and I fully understand why they get defensive toward Americans who criticize it. I respect the decision.

Americans for the most part are the polar opposite. We have a direct and emotional distrust with our government. We also bitch and complain about parties but, at the end of the day we distrust both deeply and always assume the worst. Our "G-d" is individualism. All Americans think they are special and not part a collective. We have had a civil war just because we disagreed with a regulation (right or wrong). We feel absolute power breeds absolute corruption. When a European talks gun control they are thinking of the lives it will save. When you hear an American talking gun control you hear how the government needs to be afraid of the common man and that we would rather live in a "dangerous" free society than a tyranny. This is a deep fundamental difference between cultures and IMO both are somewhat right in a given circumstance. There is no such thing as a "one shoe, fits all" when it comes to cultural norms. Every circumstance is different.

Does Google deserve the fine? Europeans say yes because they trust the government. Americans say no because they distrust the government. Which is right? Honestly IMO its probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[R0H1T]

@Frick Basically what I am seeing here is the big difference in European ideology and American ideology. Obviously I am not going to go into which I think is correct as I am biased. With that being said people attacking or defending Google it breaks down pretty simple.

Europeans from my experience have a direct and emotional bond with their ruling government. They may bitch and complain about one party or another but, in the end the only "G-d" they worship is their own bureaucracy and what it can do for them. This is why they are ok with gun control and heavy individual regulation. Things that are very taboo in the US. Is this wrong? Nope. Its their nation and how they choose to run it. It works for them and I fully understand why they get defensive toward Americans who criticize it. I respect the decision.

Americans for the most part are the polar opposite. We have a direct and emotional distrust with our government. We also bitch and complain about parties but, at the end of the day we distrust both deeply and always assume the worst. Our "G-d" is individualism. All Americans think they are special and not part a collective. We have had a civil war just because we disagreed with a regulation (right or wrong). We feel absolute power breeds absolute corruption. When a European talks gun control they are thinking of the lives it will save. When you hear an American talking gun control you hear how the government needs to be afraid of the common man and that we would rather live in a "dangerous" free society than a tyranny. This is a deep fundamental difference between cultures and IMO both are somewhat right in a given circumstance. There is no such thing as a "one shoe, fits all" when it comes to cultural norms. Every circumstance is different.

Does Google deserve the fine? Europeans say yes because they trust the government. Americans say no because they distrust the government. Which is right? Honestly IMO its probably somewhere in the middle.

Alright, not getting into this Americana vs Europa Champions league fight but how do you suppose the armed militia will fight against the tyrannical govt with F22 or F35 & tanks, that 2 mile (range) sniper rifle et al?

I've always wondered how this right came to be? Some of the arguments advocating self defense are fine but to take on a well trained & fully equipped army, can't see 2A being a justification for that?

 

[Easo]

It's not like Google would pull out of EU (no, seriously, those who believe that are... delusional).
I am split on this ruling though. Truth probably is somewhere in the middle.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Seems like the EU is always fining somebody for some huge amount of money. Is this how they pay their bills?

I wouldn't expect anything less from Google. If I owned a search engine, why wouldn't I sponsor other crap I own? I'm not forcing anybody to use hatsearch, they can go to yahoo and see a bunch of crap yahoo owns, or go to bing and see a bunch of crap microsoft owns. Why would I help a competitor?

The problem is Bing doesn't only prioritize its own results ahead of the most searched ones. And, they have always listed a result as an ad when it is an ad. This is something Google only started doing when the EU filed suit on them. Before that it was even less clear what shady shit Google was up to with their search results.

It used to be, "you pay, your ad comes first (without being listed as an ad), and people think your company is the most popular search result." What Google did since the suit was filed to act more properly, and less like an Organized Crime Syndicate, doesn't matter, as it doesn't change what they did before and what the EU charged them with.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Alright, not getting into this Americana vs Europa Champions league fight but how do you suppose the armed militia will fight against the tyrannical govt with F22 or F35 & tanks, that 2 mile (range) sniper rifle et al?

I've always wondered how this right came to be? Some of the arguments advocating self defense are fine but to take on a well trained & fully equipped army, can't see 2A being a justification for that?

Pretty simple. Over 10% of the US population is ex military. A good chunk now have seen combat. To top that off if you think the ENTIRE military would march on its own families I got a bridge to sell ya.

With all that being said people like you said the same exact thing when the US took on the Viet Cong. See how that turned out don't ya? The government wants to disarm Americans to not save them from themselves but, to control them.

 

[Frick]

@Frick Basically what I am seeing here is the big difference in European ideology and American ideology. Obviously I am not going to go into which I think is correct as I am biased. With that being said people attacking or defending Google it breaks down pretty simple.

Europeans from my experience have a direct and emotional bond with their ruling government. They may bitch and complain about one party or another but, in the end the only "G-d" they worship is their own bureaucracy and what it can do for them. This is why they are ok with gun control and heavy individual regulation. Things that are very taboo in the US. Is this wrong? Nope. Its their nation and how they choose to run it. It works for them and I fully understand why they get defensive toward Americans who criticize it. I respect the decision.

Americans for the most part are the polar opposite. We have a direct and emotional distrust with our government. We also bitch and complain about parties but, at the end of the day we distrust both deeply and always assume the worst. Our "G-d" is individualism. All Americans think they are special and not part a collective. We have had a civil war just because we disagreed with a regulation (right or wrong). We feel absolute power breeds absolute corruption. When a European talks gun control they are thinking of the lives it will save. When you hear an American talking gun control you hear how the government needs to be afraid of the common man and that we would rather live in a "dangerous" free society than a tyranny. This is a deep fundamental difference between cultures and IMO both are somewhat right in a given circumstance. There is no such thing as a "one shoe, fits all" when it comes to cultural norms. Every circumstance is different.

Does Google deserve the fine? Europeans say yes because they trust the government. Americans say no because they distrust the government. Which is right? Honestly IMO its probably somewhere in the middle.

Well put and it is essentially what I always felt is the main almost untranslatable difference between the continents. We are so close to americans in pop culture and after a certain fashion, but the gap - as you describe - is fundementally huge and very difficult to bridge. That the US, as a nation, is very young and was founded and fueled by people who ran away from things - religious prosecution, starvation, whatevs - does not really do anything to bridge that gap. While we're on the topic I am also fascinated how americans care in a different fashion. In Sweden - generally - we follow the same rules - some unspoken - all together and leave things to the government, because isn't that their job? (and privitization of things previously being a government thing/regulated have backfired) People care about rulings and so on, but seemingly far, far less than americans. You don't trust the government, but you hold it responsible at a strangely personal level. BTW, part of me love the immigrant/refugee crisis because people are really really rattled at seeing all those scary foreign faces. Also it doesn't help that the refugee centers reap obscene profits, all of it tax money, and that integration almost has been seen as racism, and that there are better schools for practical swedish in germany. Seriously. It's a bit better now though, for a while it felt like we had no idea what to do with foreigners at all so we compensated by judging anything even resembling criticism as racism. It's still like that in places, which just creates schisms. Like everywhere else; you either believe the current way is utopia or dystopia. It's almost like everyone is being dragged towards a final point of some sorts, and it's fascinating how polarized many things are. In the middle is Joes and Janes trying to live their lifes by working themselves to death while either suffocating on sugar and reality shows or evangilizing themselves on social media. Sometimes I wish I were an anthropologist because man these are interesting times to study human behavior.

But I digress.

Anyway, a compromise in this context would probably be a court where technical proof has to be presented. That is something americans seem to understand very well. But then people would have to poke around in Googles algorithms and that they will fight.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Alright, not getting into this Americana vs Europa Champions league fight but how do you suppose the armed militia will fight against the tyrannical govt with F22 or F35 & tanks, that 2 mile (range) sniper rifle et al?

I've always wondered how this right came to be? Some of the arguments advocating self defense are fine but to take on a well trained & fully equipped army, can't see 2A being a justification for that?

If you want the actual history of the US and 2nd AA and weapo history feel free and PM me since it would be off topic.

Pretty simple. Over 10% of the US population is ex military. A good chunk now have seen combat. To top that off if you think the ENTIRE military would march on its own families I got a bridge to sell ya.

With all that being said people like you said the same exact thing when the US took on the Viet Cong. See how that turned out don't ya? The government wants to disarm Americans to not save them from themselves but, to control them.

This is very true. Look at US vs middle east. Additionally, if you knew the history of gun control (it didn't exist until 1900s before than citizens owned explosives, rockets, artillery, Gatling cannons and more before the government. Citizens always had weapons first and better than the government) and what natural rights are it is highly infringed in the US. Most of the US military was privatized. Letters of Marque are very important here.

 

[notb]

I wonder what the EU will do if Google just ignores them. Are they going to block Google in the EU?

This is not North Korea. EU will not block access to a globally renowned website. And this is not US, so we won't start shooting them, either.
What EU can do is make it impossible for Google to maintain their European entities - which Google uses to pay lower taxes.
The numbers make sense. EU fined them 2.4bln EUR, but Google saves more thanks to their tax strategy for European branch.
And since it is unlikely that Google will change the way they provide search results (that's how they make those billions) you know what will happen? EU will fine them regularly - always as much as they find possible to get most of the lost tax back, but at the same time not make this totally unprofitable for Google (because we want their HQ in EU).

But it's a private road. Google has no requirements to show you anything. It is a private company if all they want to do as a business is show pictures of fuzzy hand cuffs than they can do that. You cannot get angry at a private company for displaying what they want and what helps their business on their web page.

And this is exactly what you don't understand. They can't do that. Being a private company doesn't give them right to do whatever they want (not outside US, anyway ;-)).

They offer a search engine that should give you an accurate and complete information. EU (or a local government) could find it inappropriate if they censored results based on some private matters: e.g. Google owners don't like melons, so Google never lists them when you search for fruits. We might call this funny, but that's how things work in a regulated environment.
But since Google is actually censoring competing products, EU has a clear and obvious case.

If I owned a search engine, why wouldn't I sponsor other crap I own?

Because that's not what "a search engine" is about.

Analogy: imagine you're a physician and you have a private medical practice, but you also own a pharmacological company (directly or through shares).
Do you think you should be allowed to prescribe drugs that your company makes over competition?
Of course lets assume drugs from different companies have exactly the same ingredients and the same impact on health (which is usually true).

Why would I help a competitor?

If you're operating a search engine, you're not forced to help competing search engines.

who forced you to use google.com?

That's not a valid argument outside forum discussions. In particular, it doesn't work in courts.
Google doesn't inform you that they censor the results - that's the point.

 

[hat]

Analogy: imagine you're a physician and you have a private medical practice, but you also own a pharmacological company (directly or through shares).
Do you think you should be allowed to prescribe drugs that your company makes over competition?
Of course lets assume drugs from different companies have exactly the same ingredients and the same impact on health (which is usually true).

If they're exactly the same, then sure, why not? Now, if I own drug A, and there is evidence to suggest that drug B could work better than drug A, yet I only prescribe drug A because I own drug A, and to hell with drug B because I own drug A and I want to make money off it, then that's wrong. But if drug A and drug B are exactly the same, other than I own drug A, then who cares? I'm sure the guys that own drug B are going to be pimping drug B because they own drug B, they're not gonna send people my way so we can be friends.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Analogy: imagine you're a physician and you have a private medical practice, but you also own a pharmacological company (directly or through shares).
Do you think you should be allowed to prescribe drugs that your company makes over competition?
Of course lets assume drugs from different companies have exactly the same ingredients and the same impact on health (which is usually true).

If you're operating a search engine, you're not forced to help competing search engines.

This analogy isn't even comparable and completely moot.

That's not a valid argument outside forum discussions. In particular, it doesn't work in courts.
Google doesn't inform you that they censor the results - that's the point.

Yes it is. Using google is a choice and no one forces you to use it and there are 10s if not 100s of other options so no monopoly or anti-trust can exist in said case so there can be no case for fining google.

Anti-Trust only exists if there is no other option to choose, which is not the case for a search engine and google does nothing to prevent you from using a competitor.

If google used google fiber and blocked bing and pricegrabber to google fiber subscribers that would be inherently anti-trust.

The above case is baseless and has no grounds.

Just because EU court is corrupt or retarded does not make reality or facts irrelevant....holy fracking crap man.

The amount of pure intellectual dishonesty you just spewed is news website disqus forum level!

 

[Prima.Vera]

Naturally Google cannot stop their services in EU, that's ridiculous, but on an ultimate extreme cases they will just close all Data Centers in EU countries, and no more taxes to be payed. Cancel google.<EU country> and done.

 

[cdawall]

This is not North Korea. EU will not block access to a globally renowned website. And this is not US, so we won't start shooting them, either.
What EU can do is make it impossible for Google to maintain their European entities - which Google uses to pay lower taxes.
The numbers make sense. EU fined them 2.4bln EUR, but Google saves more thanks to their tax strategy for European branch.
And since it is unlikely that Google will change the way they provide search results (that's how they make those billions) you know what will happen? EU will fine them regularly - always as much as they find possible to get most of the lost tax back, but at the same time not make this totally unprofitable for Google (because we want their HQ in EU).

This is a private american company. Fining them for things that your government already regulates isn't a good plan to keep businesses in your country. Remember if google says f the EU you loose much more than google.

And this is exactly what you don't understand. They can't do that. Being a private company doesn't give them right to do whatever they want (not outside US, anyway ;-)).

They offer a search engine that should give you an accurate and complete information. EU (or a local government) could find it inappropriate if they censored results based on some private matters: e.g. Google owners don't like melons, so Google never lists them when you search for fruits. We might call this funny, but that's how things work in a regulated environment.
But since Google is actually censoring competing products, EU has a clear and obvious case.

US based company if you don't like them go ahead and ban them. The EU has no case.

 

[notb]

If they're exactly the same, then sure, why not? Now, if I own drug A, and there is evidence to suggest that drug B could work better than drug A, yet I only prescribe drug A because I own drug A, and to hell with drug B because I own drug A and I want to make money off it, then that's wrong. But if drug A and drug B are exactly the same, other than I own drug A, then who cares? I'm sure the guys that own drug B are going to be pimping drug B because they own drug B, they're not gonna send people my way so we can be friends.

You see? This is exactly where you don't get how Europeans think. A physician's job is to improve your health, not sell drugs. We think differently.

Yes it is. Using google is a choice and no one forces you to use it and there are 10s if not 100s of other options so no monopoly or anti-trust can exist in said case so there can be no case for fining google.

It really isn't.
If you're doing a house renovation and the company you employed turns out to be very bad (they don't know how to mix concrete), is the "no one forced you to choose them" still valid?
No. You choose them because they are a building company. You assume they know how to do stuff. You can sue them if they f..up.
This is exactly what google case is about: assumption. A user assumes that this is a search engine - that it will provide him the most relevant results. Google even reserves the right to analyze my Internet usage, my e-mails and so forth - all to give me results that will fit my profile the most.

This is a private american company. Fining them for things that your government already regulates isn't a good plan to keep businesses in your country. Remember if google says f the EU you loose much more than google.

They won't. Even if they pay those 2.4bln, they'll still save a lot on EU-specific tax strategy.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

It really isn't.
If you're doing a house renovation and the company you employed turns out to be very bad (they don't know how to mix concrete), is the "no one forced you to choose them" still valid?
No. You choose them because they are a building company. You assume they know how to do stuff. You can sue them if they f..up.
This is exactly what google case is about: assumption. A user assumes that this is a search engine - that it will provide him the most relevant results. Google even reserves the right to analyze my Internet usage, my e-mails and so forth - all to give me results that will fit my profile the most.

.....you really fail basic logic dont you? Your entire point is false and wrong in so many place sits not even worth the time to go into detail but

Your analogy is wrong and irrelevant (again)
Your analogy proves you have other options
Your analogy doesn't prove that google is not a choice.
It proves it is a choice
It does not show how google caused you any damage for you to be able sue google. Please file a lawsuit against google for "damages" let us see how far that goes ROFLCOPTER (hint you have no damages and why you would be laughed out of court)

Not directed at you unless you were the one that said it on the last page:
Someone else claimed earlier this fine will recoup lost taxes..which is the definition of tyranny. Using false crimes to get money. If there was lost taxes they would be fined for tax fraud.

The void of actual honesty and intellect in this thread is appalling.

 

[hat]

You see? This is exactly where you don't get how Europeans think. A physician's job is to improve your health, not sell drugs. We think differently

Straw man detected. I never intended to debate health care here, only business practice. You gave me a premise and I replied in a business sense. That doesn't mean I'm automatically trying to sell drugs with my imaginary medical businesses.

 

[cdawall]

They won't. Even if they pay those 2.4bln, they'll still save a lot on EU-specific tax strategy.

They won't Google will pay 2.4B to a legal team before they do that