Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 458 posts

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#71

Post by samwillis »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #50
p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

We really need the equivalent of jail time for companies. Clearly after a certain size, fines do not cut it. Jailing executives is too hard, so laws should exist that remove the company from a market for x years or something, like if they were in a cell.

Rather than fine the company, fine the shareholders of public companies. If they can’t afford their share of the fine, then they have to sell their shares to pay it.

That would immediately force them to comply.

Edit: Although looking at that and this fine, if you own $1000 of google shares, you would owe $3…

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#73

Post by woevdbz »

bzxcvbn wrote: post #12
typon wrote: post #9

What amount would these EU fines have to be to make companies like Google and Facebook decide to exit the EU?

This is never going to happen. It's just too big of a market.

It's also really not the outcome wanted by regulators. Everyone losing access to their email and information, YouTube, etc would create absolute chaos. Antitrust's job is to rein in profit, not destroy markets.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#74

Post by o_1 »

Hamcha wrote: post #63
Salgat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they did with their manufacturers is a different issue, but in general they offer a lot more options than Apple. Android allows Manufacturers (such as Amazon and Samsung) to have their own app stores and allows for side loading apps, both of which are impossible with Apple.

You have it backward, Amazon and Samsung's own appstores are desperate attempts to get enough traction out of Play Store so that they are not forced to succumb to Google's demands. The issue here isn't Android not being open (which it is), the problem is Google having a lot of control (including full veto power) on devices shipping with Google Play Services, while making them an increasingly necessary part of Android…

It's not good. Google should let people opt out. Breaking the trust of it's users makes people rabid for a feasible opptuntiy to leave. Apple starting to monetize data doesn't make a great argument for jumping in that walled garden. Holding your users hostage is not a good look.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#75

Post by Normille »

esperent wrote: post #47
p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

The 3 strikes law is a US thing.

One of the few areas where I think the US has got it right. No-one should need more than 3 chances to stop being a dick.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#76

Post by jefftk »

p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

While the EU doesn't use a "three strikes" model, they do use progressively higher fines and other consequences for repeat offenses. If Google had ignored the 2017 Google Shopping order, for example, they would have lost a repeat investigation relatively quickly and there would have been very large fines. But instead, they changed how the product works, in a way that looks like they're responding to the decision and trying to follow it.

In a company with as many independent lines of business as Google has it's possible to have multiple instances of anti-trust enforcement that don't look like "we already fined you but you're continuing with the prohibited behavior", and the Android, Ads, and Shopping cases do all look really different. Plus they're covering overlapping time periods, which limits how much the regulator can say "you should have listened to us before".

(Disclosure: I used to work at Google)

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#77

Post by robertlagrant »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #65
guitarbill wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jailing executives is too hard Do you mean "too difficult" or "too bigger punishment"? Either way, I disagree. If they reap the reward of huge salaries, they ought to take some of the risks.

Yup. And if you put Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg in jail for a year or two, watch the tech industry whip itself into shape in weeks. Hold people actually responsible for the damage they do and you'll see real change.

I doubt that giving the power to overseas nations to criminalise and incarcerate US citizens has no downsides.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#78

Post by madsbuch »

samwillis wrote: post #71
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need the equivalent of jail time for companies. Clearly after a certain size, fines do not cut it. Jailing executives is too hard, so laws should exist that remove the company from a market for x years or something, like if they were in a cell.

Rather than fine the company, fine the shareholders of public companies. If they can’t afford their share of the fine, then they have to sell their shares to pay it. That would immediately force them to comply. Edit: Although looking at that and this fine, if you own $1000 of google shares, you would owe $3…

This is an absurd idea.

That would be a complete detriment to one of the greatest innovations in financing: Seperation of capital and responsibility. When you buy a stock you know you can not loose more than the stocks value, so you dare to invest.

Also, would bond holders also be burdened with this? what about derivatives?

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#79

Post by FridayoLeary »

manholio wrote: post #48
988747 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you mean 740k EUR per person? I can't find the whole budget right now, but it costs EU parliament over 100 million just to move it back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg (which is totally pointless and is only done so that France can feel important). They also apparently spend 1 billion per year on translators. EDIT: I guess I offended some French people, hence the downvotes :)

> They also apparently spend 1 billion per year on translators. Now that the UK is out of the Union, it would be nice for sanity to prevail and most of those translators be made redundant. Except for drafting official multi-language legal documents, the bulk of the proceedings can go on in English, and EMPs that require translation services should request them from their own countries. It will never happen, but one c…

Sanity is not one of the hallmarks of the monster that is the EU bureaucracy.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#80

Post by ignaloidas »

manholio wrote: post #48
988747 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you mean 740k EUR per person? I can't find the whole budget right now, but it costs EU parliament over 100 million just to move it back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg (which is totally pointless and is only done so that France can feel important). They also apparently spend 1 billion per year on translators. EDIT: I guess I offended some French people, hence the downvotes :)

> They also apparently spend 1 billion per year on translators. Now that the UK is out of the Union, it would be nice for sanity to prevail and most of those translators be made redundant. Except for drafting official multi-language legal documents, the bulk of the proceedings can go on in English, and EMPs that require translation services should request them from their own countries. It will never happen, but one c…

EU publishes tons of written material, and basically all of it has to be translated. Costs for translating the proceedings are very likely less than 1% of total costs for translation.
Post reply on HN