Rendered at 14:24:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
WarmWash 15 minutes ago [-]
People aren't going to like this, but taking a page from Apple, Microsoft, Sony (iPhone, Xbox, Playstation), the solution to constant antitrust charges stemming from competitors on your platform....is to kick them off the platform. You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors.
victorbjorklund 14 minutes ago [-]
Pretty sure Google would loose its search business if Google search only contained websites owned by Google.
zelias 48 minutes ago [-]
Wondering if Google can take out a BNPL plan to cover the damages
Hikikomori 2 hours ago [-]
This comes years after this fine was upheld about Google shopping in an EU court. I guess prisjakt (another Swedish website that works just like pricerunner) could do the same now.
Klarna bought pricerunner for just under a billion 5 years ago, pretty good deal.
buggeryorkshire 2 hours ago [-]
Didn't Google have a previous lawsuit against foundem? Not a fan of Google but foundem were fucking awful.
LtWorf 1 hours ago [-]
Not like klarna are nice
Freak_NL 30 minutes ago [-]
Quite. At least Google delivers some value to society, despite being mostly evil. Klarna is exclusively parasitic, getting people needlessly into debt and pushing a buy now pay later mentality for luxury products.
lokar 10 minutes ago [-]
And burritos
raychis 2 hours ago [-]
$1.5B is significant, but the bigger question is whether this actually changes how dominant platforms rank their own services.
Is this real accountability for anti-competitive behaviour, or just another cost of doing business for Big Tech?
My cynicism is tell me that unfortunately it is the latter.
brainwad 2 hours ago [-]
IMO the fines do have an effect - Google now withholds a lot of launches from the EU, sometimes temporarily until they have time to have lawyers check them against DMA requirements, but mostly permanently. Ironically the part of Google most likely to persist in launching for the EU is Ads, since money is at stake. All the free, consumer-benefiting services are most likely to be curtailed in the face of aggressive regulation.
cryptonym 1 hours ago [-]
> All the free, consumer-benefiting services
If they stop providing value to users, they are putting their ad business at risk. It's never free, providing value to share holders is a top priority.
teddyh 2 hours ago [-]
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
vrganj 1 hours ago [-]
All of the free services are just part of the ad sales funnel. Never forget, the consumer never benefits, they are only the cattle to be fattened up.
Them not launching in Europe gives the local market a chance to build up its own players. China was very successful in this thanks to the Great Firewall.
WarmWash 37 minutes ago [-]
The consumer, who have never paid google a cent despite using their services daily for the last 20 years, likley spending a solid portion of their waking life on one of google's platforms, has never benefited?
And you think local players are going to look at users with this comically detached worldview and be like "Yeah, we want to build services for that group of people to use"?
gowld 18 minutes ago [-]
Google doesn't make money from you "paying a cent". They make money from you paying advertisers who pay Google. So the relevant metric is how much you spent on Google advertisers.
WarmWash 13 minutes ago [-]
Raise your hand if you have ever intentionally clicked on a Google ad.
Raise your hand if you use an ad blocker.
I rest my case.
1 hours ago [-]
KptMarchewa 39 minutes ago [-]
If something like Facebook never launched here, we'd be so, so, so much better off as a society.
surgical_fire 2 hours ago [-]
> All the free, consumer-benefiting services
Those are just more avenues for Google to collect data to shove ads down everyone's throats.
Good that regulations keeps Google from releasing more pf their shit here. Governments should really tighten the screws there.
gowld 17 minutes ago [-]
The ads are getting shoved regardless. The content of the ads are based on personalization data.
soco 2 hours ago [-]
Yay for European sovereign services! A bit through the backdoor, or as a side-effect if you want, but the result is the same. Or could be the same, if it continues like that.
thisislife2 31 minutes ago [-]
They do treat it as a "cost of doing business" as they do hedge between making a bigger profit through such violations vis the possible fine. But enforced fines like these serve as a warning that the government / regulator / judiciary are serious about enforcing laws and upholding rights. That precedent does discourages such actions because they know future violations will invite similar actions (the punitive fines may be worse for repeat violations) thus making the risks higher. The counter to that is political lobbying, if it is cheaper than the fines, and is also treated as another "cost of doing business".
Absolute numbers with BigTech are never significant. Only viable paths for remedy anre outright divestment or revoking financial license in Sweden.
The former is nigh impossible, the latter is fairly trivial with sufficient will.
yieldcrv 16 minutes ago [-]
It was about behavior 9 years ago
Internet wont be human steered by the time this is over
Just agents running x402 payments over mcp servers
DANmode 2 hours ago [-]
Vouched, I feel similarly.
(I can’t possibly understand this being downvoted.
The downvote button isn’t an “I disagree” button.)
orphea 45 minutes ago [-]
Perhaps because the comment didn't add to the discussion? like all those +1 comments in GitHub issues.
_el1s7 2 hours ago [-]
> PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favoured its price comparison service for many years
Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?
malfist 2 hours ago [-]
When you're a permitted monopoly you have the behave differently, including being fair to competitors.
1.5B is preferable to being broken up (not that Sweden could enforce that)
bevekspldnw 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
rkachowski 1 hours ago [-]
Because this kind of behavior was rampant in the past - where one company owned everything and could leverage it's size and influence to crush competition across distinct market spaces. It prevented other companies from operating in the same space, which led to stagnation, outrageous human exploitation, inequality, and ultimately the great depression.
It is now illegal as laws have been introduced with the aim to prevent this from happening again. The effectiveness of these laws, with regards to how well they fit the current era, is a different matter.
pdpi 1 hours ago [-]
The thing that is illegal is leveraging a monopoly position in one market to give yourself an advantage in another market.
So Google is allowed to favour their own price comparison in, say, Hangouts, but not in Search.
bevekspldnw 2 hours ago [-]
Why would Swedish courts NOT favor their own national economic interests? How is that illegal?
carlosjobim 1 hours ago [-]
Well if the Swedish courts stomp on Google in the name of national interest, maybe the US will stomp on Sweden in the name of national interest. Now consider where Klarna gets the most of their money from.
piva00 1 hours ago [-]
So no country can ever take action and enforce their local laws because the USA can retaliate?
Why have local laws in that case? Better we all just adopt American laws to not have to fear the Americans getting pissy when they diverge...
embedding-shape 1 hours ago [-]
> Now consider where Klarna gets the most of their money from.
Considering Klarna essentially boils down to a lending service for people who want to buy stuff they aren't able to afford in the moment, I don't think this is the dunk you think it is.
victorbjorklund 11 minutes ago [-]
Let’s wait until USA tacos and offers to pay reperations. How many billions of dollars was it USA was going to secure for Iran in exchange for peace?
vitally3643 1 hours ago [-]
The US literally just lost the war in Iran. I don't think they're actually capable of "stomping" on anyone.
bevekspldnw 32 minutes ago [-]
Don’t tease the paper tiger, it might be forced to fold again.
victorbjorklund 13 minutes ago [-]
Why would Microsoft NOT favor its own products? How is that illegal?
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2 hours ago [-]
Have you been sleeping under a rock for 30+ years, don’t know what antitrust is, and still feel confident enough to shout about it in a comment?
The law isn’t just “what you happen to intuitively think is right”, especially in a jurisdiction where you clearly do not reside.
dboreham 2 hours ago [-]
The Big Lebowski school of law.
vrganj 1 hours ago [-]
It is illegal to use your monopoly in one area to unfairly distort the market in another. This is one of the core concepts of antitrust law.
namdnay 2 hours ago [-]
"Why would Microsoft NOT favor it's own browser in it's own OS? How is that illegal?"
spunker540 2 hours ago [-]
Last I checked they still do exactly that. Not sure why that case is used as an example when literally every OS bundles a preferred browser
1 hours ago [-]
IsTom 1 hours ago [-]
Have you checked in EU?
YetAnotherNick 1 hours ago [-]
Checked what in EU? Do Microsoft not bundle their own browser in Windows in EU?
usrnm 51 minutes ago [-]
No
YetAnotherNick 34 minutes ago [-]
Source? The only news I can find about is EU users can uninstall it.
pohuing 30 minutes ago [-]
They do. Good luck getting Firefox otherwise, so I don't mind it.
Similarly, they bundle Bing as the Web search in the start menu.
iLoveOncall 2 hours ago [-]
You may not like it but I agree it shouldn't be illegal. If competitors aren't happy they can make their own OS.
At this point can you make a custom task manager and sue Microsoft to propose users to install your task manager on first boot? What about background image providers, why doesn't Microsoft propose to install background images from them at first boot?
It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.
They should not block alternatives, but having to promote them is complete nonsense.
1 hours ago [-]
Hikikomori 2 hours ago [-]
something something monopoly. Even US has laws about this, currently not enforced though.
al_borland 1 hours ago [-]
Sure, but if I’m understanding this (maybe I’m not), a company could make a service competitive to an Alphabet product, then sue them for not using it?
For instance, if a company started up an ad business, are they going to sue and win, because Google uses their own ad service in Search instead of this new competitor?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
JAlexoid 1 hours ago [-]
You're not understanding this.
A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.
The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.
You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.
brainwad 15 minutes ago [-]
But is searching for products a new product line, or just a natural extension of searching for webpages (many of which are about products)? Where do you draw the line between merely improving the monopoly product and abusing the monopoly?
Hikikomori 3 minutes ago [-]
Showing your own product like google maps or shopping at the top of each relevant search result is likely over the line, maybe its ok if its down in the results, still high not always number 1.
But for example if they're behind a user choice like a click after your search is done, ie click shopping or maps because you want to use googles products in this case, then its likely not over the line. If its still over the line would they be required to unbundle products by for example using different domains? Would that also apply to things like facebook marketplace then?
bevekspldnw 25 minutes ago [-]
No, you are the one not understanding this.
Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.
Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.
This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.
Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.
The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.
Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.
However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.
Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!
newaccount670 39 minutes ago [-]
This is effectively just a tariff. An extremely large and disproportionate fine on a foreign company so that the local company has a better chance to compete.
DanielHB 12 minutes ago [-]
Klarna routinely gets into legal trouble with Swedish and EU agencies
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac...
Klarna bought pricerunner for just under a billion 5 years ago, pretty good deal.
Is this real accountability for anti-competitive behaviour, or just another cost of doing business for Big Tech?
My cynicism is tell me that unfortunately it is the latter.
If they stop providing value to users, they are putting their ad business at risk. It's never free, providing value to share holders is a top priority.
Them not launching in Europe gives the local market a chance to build up its own players. China was very successful in this thanks to the Great Firewall.
And you think local players are going to look at users with this comically detached worldview and be like "Yeah, we want to build services for that group of people to use"?
Raise your hand if you use an ad blocker.
I rest my case.
Those are just more avenues for Google to collect data to shove ads down everyone's throats.
Good that regulations keeps Google from releasing more pf their shit here. Governments should really tighten the screws there.
(Even India has fined them 100s of millions of dollars - https://ssrana.in/articles/google-fined-anti-competitive-pra... ).
The former is nigh impossible, the latter is fairly trivial with sufficient will.
Internet wont be human steered by the time this is over
Just agents running x402 payments over mcp servers
(I can’t possibly understand this being downvoted.
The downvote button isn’t an “I disagree” button.)
Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?
1.5B is preferable to being broken up (not that Sweden could enforce that)
It is now illegal as laws have been introduced with the aim to prevent this from happening again. The effectiveness of these laws, with regards to how well they fit the current era, is a different matter.
So Google is allowed to favour their own price comparison in, say, Hangouts, but not in Search.
Why have local laws in that case? Better we all just adopt American laws to not have to fear the Americans getting pissy when they diverge...
Considering Klarna essentially boils down to a lending service for people who want to buy stuff they aren't able to afford in the moment, I don't think this is the dunk you think it is.
The law isn’t just “what you happen to intuitively think is right”, especially in a jurisdiction where you clearly do not reside.
Similarly, they bundle Bing as the Web search in the start menu.
At this point can you make a custom task manager and sue Microsoft to propose users to install your task manager on first boot? What about background image providers, why doesn't Microsoft propose to install background images from them at first boot?
It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.
They should not block alternatives, but having to promote them is complete nonsense.
For instance, if a company started up an ad business, are they going to sue and win, because Google uses their own ad service in Search instead of this new competitor?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.
The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.
You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.
But for example if they're behind a user choice like a click after your search is done, ie click shopping or maps because you want to use googles products in this case, then its likely not over the line. If its still over the line would they be required to unbundle products by for example using different domains? Would that also apply to things like facebook marketplace then?
Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.
Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.
This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.
Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.
The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.
Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.
However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.
Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!
https://www.moneylaunderingbulletin.com/legalandregulatory/c...
There was another case where they got slapped hard by the Swedish tax agency, but I can't find links for it.
Sometimes courts are actually just enforcing rules you know. Just because it is a foreign company it doesn't mean it can bypass local rules.