Live data from Hacker News

Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

bbc.com

261–270 of 414 posts

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#261
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not leveraging dominance in one area to push a different area is the basis of our anti-monopoly laws.

While I agreed the shopping issue was an issue of leveraging dominance, this seems more reasonable, if you want to monitize our free service, you have to use us to do it. At the moment I cannot come up with an example of that situation that would be an antitrust violation.

Was this service free? It seems that if sites were modifying the results page to re-arrange ads, they were probably using the Google Custom Search JSON API, which is a paid service ($5/1000 queries): https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview#Pric...

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#262
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a risk / reward thing, if getting fined for less than what they earned (both in actual money and in removing competition from the equation) then it's worth the risk.

These top EU fines so far are extremely large, larger than anything a US regulator or jury orders, perhaps larger than the largest ever US fine.

Just because they are larger than US doesn’t mean they are extremely large - I would argue it’s US fines that are too small, and regulators being too mild.

As for larger ever US fine - perhaps for Google. US can also be rough.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#265
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a EU citizen I like my personal data protected. I left facebook and all other networks except Twitter and usually do not give data for any coupons in shops. GDPR is a mess not from the goal but the implementation. Currently no one knows how to implement GDPR correctly - e.g. how to exchange business cards, how to store information from sales leads etc. Compare this with PCI compliance (which is about CC data prote…

> Currently no one knows how to implement GDPR correctly - e.g. how to exchange business cards, how to store information from sales leads etc. The only time I've seen it be a problem for people is when they are playing fast and loose with people's data. I mean, exchanging business cards is (I would suggest) in invitation to start a conversation. I'm not personally worried about that. It's definitely not an invitation…

> The only time I've seen it be a problem for people is when they are playing fast and loose with people's data.

For sites not in the EU, see Article 27.

If you are not in the EU, and you processes personal data of people in the EU, and the processing is related to offering goods or services to those people (regardless of whether payment is required), Article 27 requires you to have a representative in the Union.

Note: do not mix this representative up with the Data Protection Officer, which may be required by Article 37. DPOs are generally only required for pretty big data processors, and if you are required to have a DPO there is no geographic limitation on where they can be.

Article 27 doesn't apply if the processing is only occasional and doesn't involve certain especially sensitive categories, but it is not at all clear what counts as more than occasional.

Note: common system logs, such as Apache logs, include personal data (IP addresses). Logging such data is probably not a violation of GDPR, but that doesn't make it no longer count as personal data. It still counts and so you still have to follow the rules for sites that processes personal data.

It also won't apply if goods or services aren't being offered to people in the Union, but that too is unclear. You site merely being accessible from in the EU is not sufficient, but it is not clear what beyond that counts.

There is no need to be playing fast and loose with data to be totally unsure if Article 27 applies to you or not.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. Basically the way the EU sees it, Google has a monopoly in a market: mobile operating systems. That is, if you're an OEM and you want to sell a device with an operating system, Google is currently the only place you can really turn. Apple exists but since it doesn't sell its operating system, it's not a participant in this market. So the EU saw Google saying to OEMs "you can have Android but you have…

As far as I know, Android is open source and any OEM is free to use it without asking permission. The licensing program is for the right to install proprietary Google apps like the Play Store or Google Maps. There are plenty of Chinese OEMs who aren't licensed and sell phones without the Play store.

Amazon tried to sell Android without Google Play, but the resulting Amazon Fire Phone didn't do very well. Unless Google is banned in your country like in China, no OEM wants to risk skipping out on Google Play.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#268
post #205

Just trying to get the facts straight. Google provided the ability to search your site. They also allowed you to show ads/make money from these searches. If you wanted to use this, you had to only show Google ads. I don't understand how that is illegal.

Google is leveraging its power in search by making sites not display ads from its competitors if they wish to use their search.

Sounds uncompetitive to me.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#269
Based on the cadence and size of these fines for the given offenses, they seem like backdoor taxes, not fines. They're hitting Google's global revenue over comparatively minor offenses, seemingly just enough to keep Google around as a golden goose to extract more wealth out of but not drive them away completely like China.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About $8 billion revenue per quarter for EU + Middle East, let's say roughly 60% of people in Europe use the internet and > 90% of them use Google. Therefore: 8,000,000,000 / (500,000,000 * 0.9 * 0.6) = $29.63 per person revenue per quarter. Could be as much as +- $10 given how arbitrary (research based, but still guesswork) my inputs were... Somewhere around $100 per person per year seems insane but I guess how much…

This really puts things in to perspective. Subscription startups looking to get some percentage of the population to pay $10 a month can never reach the scale of google advertising when they are extracting nearly that much value on average from every single person.

Well that's part of the problem inherent with the subscription model, isn't it?

Google can make >$100 a click for ads on mortgages or insurance keywords, but subscription models are locked in to revenue that doesn't scale with the category of use - unless they become some sort of affiliate service.

Post reply on HN