The EU Threatens To Break Up Google On Antitrust Grounds

[Hydrogen]

Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager expresses 'grave concerns' over search giant's dominant 91.5 per cent market share

Google may ultimately need to be broken up to stop the tech company securing a monopoly over internet search, the EU has said.

Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said she harboured "grave suspicions" about the Silicon Valley giant  - which currently commands a 91.5 per cent share of Europe's search engine market - and said that ordering its fragmentation into smaller companies on anti-trust grounds may be the only way to ensure fair trading conditions.

"I think it is important to keep that question open and on the agenda,” Ms Vestager said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. "We are not there yet but it is important to keep an awakened eye."

Nicknamed "the Eurocrat Who Makes America Tremble" by Bloomberg, the Dane has built a formidable reputation on her willingness to challenge the likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook since taking the job in 2014.

"There is no ban on success in Europe," she told The Telegraph.

"You get to be dominant and you get a special responsibility that you don’t destroy the already weakened competition.

"We have proven their dominance in search and we have found they have misused this dominance to promote themselves and diminish competitors."

This last remark referred to the European Commission (EC) fining Google €2.42bn (£2.1bn) last year for manipulating shopping search results to favour its own services.

"This is not competition on the merits and is illegal under EU antitrust rules," Ms Vestager said at the time.

The EC is meanwhile reportedly drafting new regulations ordering search providers, online retailers and app stores to be more transparent about how their algorithms rank search results.

The behaviour of the world's leading tech firms remains under close scrutiny at present following the revelations about Cambridge Analytica's harvesting of Facebook data for political ends.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-eu-competiton-commission-threat-margrethe-vestager-search-monopoly-anti-trust-laws-a8273961.html

....

Another interesting topic up for discussion Anti trust laws.   

One typical observation made of anti trust laws is the tendency for european and american nations to break up and divide the dominant businesses in their respective countries, while foreign nations like china and japan would never do such a thing. Over the long term, in terms of global markets, this has potential for american and european business to suffer with business in asia benefiting as a result.

An argument could be made for anti-trust laws being obsolete in this day and age. In the case of the EU and other centralized and monopolistic state entities, anti trust hearings could be an underhanded way for them to hand down fines as a method of creating revenue streams. Another possibility is that google and other tech giants are not cooperating with some of the more underhanded and immoral agendas in the world and so they are targeted for things like anti trust suits which don't have much validity.

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

Anyways that's my $0.02. What does everyone think about this?   

[BitHodler]

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

Healthcare entities artificially inflating their rates aren't a concern or potential threat to the government, where Google definitely may be.

Google fills up such an important role in current internet time frame, that they are the ones being responsible for the information people absorb about elections, presidential candidates, and so forth.

Facebook also pointed out to be such an important player in current time frame, that in a certain way, they can manipulate people based on showing them the information Facebook wants them to absorb.

Google and Facebook almost know more about people than the people know about themselves, which is quite scary. These major social media platforms hold data they either can use themselves, or sell to the highest bidder.

I don't mind Google potentially undergoing this treatment.

[Mometaskers]

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

Totally agree with that. If it were not for public outrage the government wouldn't go after those people and many only get imprisoned because of a different offense. They should have set a ceiling cap.

Google and Facebook almost know more about people than the people know about themselves, which is quite scary. These major social media platforms hold data they either can use themselves, or sell to the highest bidder.

I don't mind Google potentially undergoing this treatment.

Hopefully FB too gets the nerfbat after that whole Cambridge Analytica scandal. What disturb me more are the attitude of the CEOs of these companies towards their end user. Take for example Jeff Bezos' statement that soon it would be "irresponsible" for anyone not to be on Amazon Prime. Well, it seems the business environment do favor the sociopaths.

[squatz1]

They may threaten to break them up, but it isn't going to do anything anyway. It's just to scare some investors who don't have the sort of mentality to hold through the bullshit news. What's the EU going to do? Google is a massive company that will simply lobby their way through issues if they need to -- if it was a real problem it'd be solved already.

[Noelbetty12]

This is a clear sample of the idea of freedom. The freedom to view something and not to censor results are the rights of a person. When google said it will be blocking cryptocurrency ads, it is showing how powerful google is to manipulate the web to view just the content they want. I think this move by EU is good to show to anybody that people are not that easily deprived by their rights.

[Nick Abimanyu]

Your opinions are all true and I agree with that.

Occasionally Google and Facebook should be given a warning so that they are aware of the actions that they will do can lead to erroneous results for various parties. One of the forms of EU disappointment to Google needs to get support from various parties both from the state and society.

[gentlemand]

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

Totally agree with that. If it were not for public outrage the government wouldn't go after those people and many only get imprisoned because of a different offense. They should have set a ceiling cap.

Would the world be worse off without Google? Not really.

Drug companies are a different matter. They price gouge because they can. And they can threaten to walk away from what they do any time regulators get heavy. They're not doing it to benefit humanity.

[Semleho]

As a user, I know that this is the only reason why users prefer Google. European lawmakers should also know that Google's dominance is not the power of lawyers, and the alternate range is only two clicks away. Thanks to this hard work Google has produced many billions of euros, which makes competitors jealous. So problems and cases are now the only topic of discussion.
Because in my opinion, google 100 ‰ will not be afraid of threats.
Just imagine what if this google device is lost or bankrupt. I think that will never happen, while people in this world are still in use.

Many of the maanfaat considerations of this increasingly sophisticated era, such as, one of them, good and useful for pushing contribution to strengthen the international economy

[exstasie]

An argument could be made for anti-trust laws being obsolete in this day and age. In the case of the EU and other centralized and monopolistic state entities, anti trust hearings could be an underhanded way for them to hand down fines as a method of creating revenue streams. Another possibility is that google and other tech giants are not cooperating with some of the more underhanded and immoral agendas in the world and so they are targeted for things like anti trust suits which don't have much validity.

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

We can't view this case in isolation. Consider the fact that Google spends more on patents than R&D. These corporate behemoths depend on leveraging state authority and law to maintain their positions. That's the problem with the "laissez faire" response. There is no free market here. Entities like Google are completely tied to states.

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

Totally agree with that. If it were not for public outrage the government wouldn't go after those people and many only get imprisoned because of a different offense. They should have set a ceiling cap.

Would the world be worse off without Google? Not really.

Drug companies are a different matter. They price gouge because they can. And they can threaten to walk away from what they do any time regulators get heavy. They're not doing it to benefit humanity.

They'll only walk away if the bottom line isn't worth it. They operate within a social contract: you get x years of patents/exclusivity. After that, your work is supposed to benefit society. Medical progress and what not.

[BartS]

This is a clear sample of the idea of freedom. The freedom to view something and not to censor results are the rights of a person. When google said it will be blocking cryptocurrency ads, it is showing how powerful google is to manipulate the web to view just the content they want. I think this move by EU is good to show to anybody that people are not that easily deprived by their rights.

Google banned cryptocurrency ads not search results, however it has been shown time and time again that Google manipulates those search results in favor of itself and its businesses this means that if you are in direct competition with Google you have no chance and even if you are not in direct competition if in the future Google decides they want a share of the niche in which you are then you have no chance to win against it, to me antitrust laws application against Google is long overdue and I hope the laws are applied harshly against it.

[Mometaskers]

It is possible that real targets of anti trust cases should be things like healthcare entities which artificially inflate the cost of healthcare. Drug companies which mark the price of drugs up 10,000%.

Totally agree with that. If it were not for public outrage the government wouldn't go after those people and many only get imprisoned because of a different offense. They should have set a ceiling cap.

Would the world be worse off without Google? Not really.

Drug companies are a different matter. They price gouge because they can. And they can threaten to walk away from what they do any time regulators get heavy. They're not doing it to benefit humanity.

There should have still been some regulations to prevent rapid price increases. Sure, you'd probably jack up the price if you're the only one that have a patent and that's fine if it's just some luxury good but medicines should be different. Take for example EpiPen, it's just epinephrine and just cost $30 to make.