EU slaps Google with record $2.7 billion fine

[Cathoholic]

The problem with anti-trust fines for corporations, is the corporation isn’t going to go down to the bank and withdraw money from its executives to pay the fine.

No.

These fines get passed on to the customers.

Back in the 80’s the Ronald Regan administration broke up AT&T.

Perhaps now is a good time for governments to consider breaking up many of these mega-corporations (I was under the impression that’s what anti-trust laws were in place for).

Big Business, is closely attached to Big Government though. Which will make meaningful anti-trust enforcement very difficult in my opinion.

God bless.

Cathoholic

EU slaps Google with record $2.7 billion fine

European Union regulators slapped Google with a record €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion) antitrust fine for denying “consumers a genuine choice.” CNN’s Isa Soares reports.Source: CNN

cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/06/27/european-union-fines-google-record-2-4-billion-euros-soares-pkg.cnn

 

[Vouthon]

I think this was an excellent decision by the EU:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/european-union-google-antitrust-democrats_us_59529c3fe4b02734df2dda82

**European antitrust officials slapped Google with a record $2.7 billion fine on Tuesday for manipulating search results to favor its own services.

The ruling, which came after a seven-year investigation, exposes what critics described as the failure of U.S. regulators to rein in monopolies at home, forcing their victims to seek recourse in the European Union.

“The U.S. does not do antitrust regulation,” Matt Stoller, an antitrust expert at the nonpartisan New America Foundation’s Open Markets program, told HuffPost. “That’s the key difference. [Europeans] actually do antitrust.”**

newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/06/eu-s-willingness-take-google-shows-just-how-stupid-brexit

**Google’s fine is an example of how by working together Europe can at least rise to the challenge the new oligopolies have thrown up

It is not difficult to see where the balance of power lies in the modern world as between a teach giant and a supranational entity numbering 600 million citizens.

Google’s record €2.4bn (£2.12bn) fine for breaching European competition rules is an eye-catching example of the EU taking on the Silicon Valley giants. It is also just one part of a larger battle to get to grips with the influence of US-based web firms.

From fake news to tax, the European Commission has taken the lead in investigating and, in this instance, sanctioning, the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon for practices it believes are either anti-competitive for European business or detrimental to the lives of its citizens.

Only in May the commission fined Facebook €110m for providing misleading information about its takeover of WhatsApp. In January, it issued a warning to Facebook over its role in spreading fake news. Last summer, it ordered Apple to pay an extra €13bn in tax it claims should have been paid in Ireland (the Irish government had offered a tax break). Now Google has been hit for favouring its own price comparison services in its search results. In other words, consumers who used Google to find the best price for a product across the internet were in fact being gently nudged towards the search engine giant’s own comparison website…

it’s vital to to have a democratic entity that can represent the needs of its citizens. So far the EU has proved the only organisation with both the will and strength to do so.

The US Federal Communications Commission could also do more to provide a check on their power, but has rarely shown the determination to do so. And this is unlikely to change under Donald Trump - the US Congress recently voted to block proposed FCC rules on telecoms companies selling user data.

Other countries such as China have resisted the influence of the internet giants, but primarily by simply cutting off their access and relying on home-grown alternatives it can control better.

And so it has fallen to the EU to fight to ensure that its citizens get the benefits of the digital revolution without handing complete control over our online lives to companies based far away.**

 

[dshix]

Was Google breaking a law? How can they be fined for presenting things on a platform which THEY own in a way which favors their own services?

The more amusing question: I wonder how difficult it would be for Google to simply decline to pay the fine, threatening to deny the entire EU access to any of its services? That would be interesting.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I do not like Google much, but I like the EU even less. I hope that they refuse to pay the fine.

Google is free. Of course they are going to use their platform to promote their own products above others.

 

[Cathoholic]

starshiptrooper:

Google is free.

Google has no up front cost to users but Google is not free.

If Google is assessed $, YOU PAY either through advertisers who use it (passing on the increased cost to you, the customer), the Government who pays money for information (the cost is passed on to YOU in taxes), and probably other ways that we are unaware of.

Four of the top six Google executives back in 2012 made $124 MILLION dollars in remuneration.

And there are other large sources of funds that presumably come from “somewhere”.

. . . Page and Brin, who co-founded Google in 1998, have capped their salaries to $1 since the company went public in 2004. It’s a symbolic gesture that other top Silicon Valley executives such as Apple’s late CEO Steve Jobs, and Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang have made after amassing fortunes through the stock that they held in their respective companies.

Page, 40, and Brin, 39, are Google’s two biggest stockholders, with stakes that are each currently worth about $20 billion.

Meanwhile, other Google executives are still looking to build their fortunes. Last year’s biggest windfall went to Nikesh Arora, who oversees the advertising sales that generated most of Google’s $50 billion in revenue last year. . .

indiatimes.com/technology/enterprise/google-reveals-salaries-of-top-executives-74093.html

 

[Cathoholic]

Vouthon thinks assessing citizens for corporate abuses is “an excellent decision”.

I disagree.

 

[josh987654321]

Vouthon thinks assessing citizens for corporate abuses is “an excellent decision”.

I disagree.

I’m inclined to agree with the EU on this one, I don’t like Google or the EU, but Google and Microsoft etc all have a bad and dangerous monopoly going on, should be some viable alternatives to keep them in check. If they are breaking EU trade/advertising law, they should not be able to get away with it by hiding in another Country and then continue doing it in the EU.

I don’t see how the EU would be able to actually fine them, unless they can go after some Google representative in the EU itself, if anything, they should probably say, abide by our laws or be banned from the EU.

Google from what I have heard is also notorious for tax dodging in these other Countries including Australia.

Monopolies are always dangerous and can easily go rogue when formed, they don’t need the EU to stand up to Google, one can do that in their own Country I believe.

I believe the EU is itself open to the same kind of transgressions they are rightly challenging Google over.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Vouthon]

I’m inclined to agree with the EU on this one, I don’t like Google or the EU, but Google and Microsoft etc all have a bad and dangerous monopoly going on, should be some viable alternatives to keep them in check.

Interestingly enough, the pro-Brexit Sun newspaper here in Britain also agreed with the EU on this particular issue:

thesun.co.uk/news/3899248/we-applaud-the-eu-for-their-long-overdue-2billion-fine-for-google-for-flouting-competition-rules/

**THE SUN SAYS We applaud the EU for their long overdue £2billion fine for Google for flouting competition rules

The search giant abused its dominance to unfairly promote its comparison shopping service and relegate rivals

MAKE sure you’re sitting down… today The Sun warmly congratulates the EU.

The European Commission’s £2billion fine for Google for flouting competition rules is long overdue and richly deserved.

The search giant abused its dominance to unfairly promote its comparison shopping service and relegate rivals.

That is typical of its arrogance — and the tip of an iceberg. Google also threatens the future of the Press by giving our content away and taking the ad revenue.

Meanwhile it dodges its responsibilities as a publisher and, via YouTube, spreads videos inciting terrorism.
**

 

[J_Peterson]

The problem with anti-trust fines for corporations, is the corporation isn’t going to go down to the bank and withdraw money from its executives to pay the fine.

No.

These fines get passed on to the customers.

Back in the 80’s the Ronald Regan administration broke up AT&T.

Perhaps now is a good time for governments to consider breaking up many of these mega-corporations (I was under the impression that’s what anti-trust laws were in place for).

Big Business, is closely attached to Big Government though. Which will make meaningful anti-trust enforcement very difficult in my opinion.

God bless.

Cathoholic

cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/06/27/european-union-fines-google-record-2-4-billion-euros-soares-pkg.cnn

We are not the customer of Google, we are the product. I’ve never paid a penny to use google and I never will. Can’t see how this would affect me. The internet can crash and burn and I’ll be perfectly fine, probably bored for a spell but I can get over it.

 

[Trader]

US and European antitrust philosophies are very different. In the US the goal is to protect consumers, but the EU aims to protect companies that compete with more successful companies. Microsoft and Apple have had similar problems with EU regulators.

Apparently if you produce a product or service that is too good, you are a danger to your competitors and they have to be protected. Silly customers tend to choose the best product and that hurts the companies that produce inferior products. Microsoft was actually accused of charging too much and too little for Internet Explorer, which was free with the Windows operating system. My solution would be for competitors to make a better product and let consumers decide. I prefer Google’s Chrome browser for most things, but also use Microsoft Edge and Maxthon browsers for specific purposes. There are plenty of other search options for consumers. Let them decide based on their preferences.

 

[peter26]

google is for various reasons an appalling organisation that operates a virtual monopoly in various fields. They have been fined for breaching EU competition rules. Their actions do indeed violate the rules, to the detriment of other companies trying to sell their goods through other platforms, and to the ultimate detriment of consumers who may not get as lower price or as much choice of product. This was an entirely appropriate decision. And that’s speaking as someone who is by no means a fan of the EU.

 

[Vouthon]

google is for various reasons an appalling organisation that operates a virtual monopoly in various fields. They have been fined for breaching EU competition rules. Their actions do indeed violate the rules, to the detriment of other companies trying to sell their goods through other platforms, and to the ultimate detriment of consumers who may not get as lower price or as much choice of product. This was an entirely appropriate decision. And that’s speaking as someone who is by no means a fan of the EU.

 

[Cathoholic]

People can think they don’t pay for Google all they want, but you still end up paying.

The “fines” ultimately get passed on to the consumers from Google. Even if you never use their search engine.

“Fines” such as this do not intimidate Google.

If anti-trust laws are broken, then break the company up into seven or eight different companies (which injects competetion, lowers costs to consumers, encourages innovation, provides jobs, and potentially defangs a company that is “too big to fail”).

Admittedly not easy as Google is international but could be done.

Peter26:

google is for various reasons an appalling organisation that operates a virtual monopoly in various fields.

This is exactly WHY you break up the company.

 

[Cathoholic]

J Peterson:

We are not the customer of Google, we are the product.

We are both.

 

[Cathoholic]

The same problem is going on right now in the flight/travel industry.

The runway to the final four

A series of bankruptcies and mergers over the last 12 years has taken what had been 10 major U.S. airlines down to four mega-carriers which dominate the market.

money.cnn.com/infographic/news/companies/airline-merger/

 

[Cathoholic]

The same problem is going on right now in the “news” industry.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

Ashley Lutz Jun. 14, 2012

This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.

That’s consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983. . . .

businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

JUN 1, 2016 @ 02:26 PM

These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies

Kate Vinton , FORBES STAFF

. . . . While a billionaire secretly funding a lawsuit to take down a news outlet may be a new way of using money to influence the media business, billionaires have long exerted influence on the news simply by owning U.S. media outlets.

Some billionaires, like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg are longtime media moguls who made their fortunes in the news business. Others, like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, bought publications as a side investment after building a substantial fortune in another industry. Billionaires own part or all of several of America’s influential national newspapers, including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times NYT +0.86%, in addition to magazines, local papers and online publications.

Several other billionaires, including Comcast CMCSA -0.01% CEO Brian Roberts and Liberty Media LMCA +% Chairman John Malone, own or control cable TV networks that are powerful but not primarily news focused.

Here’s a look at some of the billionaires who own news media in the United States . . . .

forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#589e143a660a

 

[Cathoholic]

The same problem is going on right now in the banking and moneylending industry.

How the Three Largest U.S. Banks Got So Big – And What’s Next

Deena Zaidi Deena Zaidi Follow May 10, 2016

While the Federal Reserve and other regulatory bodies aren’t allowing any more mega bank mergers for now, the nation’s largest banks got to where they are by combining. In fact, assets are more concentrated now at the nation’s largest banks than they were before the financial crisis. . . .
. . . .The rise in mergers and acquisitions has occurred despite increasing concerns that the banking industry has reached the same state that preceded its nearly cataclysmic fall of 2008. Critics of the U.S. banking system say that the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) phenomenon is primed for a repeat. They say that legislation designed to limit banking activities and size, and to minimize risk have not been effective. . . .

. . . President, Neel Kashkari said that in 2008, “We were even forced to support large bank mergers, which helped stabilize the immediate crisis, but that we knew would make TBTF worse in the long term.” . . .

. . . But some of the biggest mergers by JPMorgan Chase happened around the time of the 2008 financial crisis. They included the $1.1 billion purchase of Bear Stearns. Later it acquired the banking operations of Washington Mutual for $1.9 billion from the government. This deal made JPMorgan Chase the largest bank for nationwide deposits and expanded its operations. . . .

thestreet.com/story/13562373/1/how-the-three-largest-u-s-banks-got-so-big-and-what-s-next.html

And so much for . . . . "Federal Reserve and other regulatory bodies aren’t allowing any more mega bank mergers for now"!

Fed eases bank merger rules by lifting size threshold for review

Friday, 17 Mar 2017 | Reuters

The U.S. Federal Reserve on Thursday made it easier for bigger lenders to merge, by quadrupling its threshold of combined size that would require an extensive regulatory review of a proposed deal.

A merger that creates a bank with total assets of less than $100 billion is not a threat to the financial system, the central bank said in a statement on Thursday. Since 2012, that threshold had been $25 billion. . . .

cnbc.com/2017/03/17/fed-eases-bank-merger-rules-by-lifting-size-threshold-for-review.html

 

[Cathoholic]

The same problem is going on right now in the oil industry.

Shell inks $70 billion deal as Big Oil gets even bigger

by Charles Riley @CRrileyCNN April 8, 2015

Rock-bottom energy prices are triggering their usual response from oil companies: A wave of tie-ups that make the biggest producers even bigger.

The latest example is Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA)'s bid for BG Group (BRGYY), a British firm with a stockpile of prized oil fields off the coast of Brazil, and lucrative natural gas holdings in Australia.

The companies announced the £47 billion ($70 billion) deal early Wednesday. It’s the biggest in the sector since Exxon (XOM) bought Mobil in 1998, according to Dealogic. Shell will pay a 50% premium to BG’s closing share price of £9.10 ($13.56) on Tuesday. . . .

money.cnn.com/2015/04/08/investing/shell-bg-energy-merger/index.html

 

[Cathoholic]

The same problem is going on right now in the agricultural industry.

Trump could approve a giant merger that’s scaring American farmers

Dana Varinsky Feb. 5, 2017, 11:22 PM

In mid-January, the CEOs of Bayer and Monsanto, Werner Baumann and Hugh Grant, reported in a joint statement that they had a “very productive meeting” with the incoming president about their potential $66 billion merger.

The deal, which the two companies announced in September, would combine the German pharmaceutical and chemical group with the US seed giant — a move they say would boost agriculture research and innovation. . . .

businessinsider.com/bayer-monsanto-merger-trump-farmers-worried-2017-2

Where Bayer-Monsanto’s $66 billion merger stands now

May 11, 2017, 2:30pm CDT

The approval of the $43 billion ChemChina-Syngenta merger is a good sign that the Bayer-Monsanto merger will face a favorable regulatory climate, according to a J.P. Morgan analyst. . . .

bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2017/05/11/where-bayer-monsantos-66-billion-merger-stands-now.html

This is all part of the “wedding” of Big Government to Big Business.

 

[Cathoholic]

The same problem is going on right now in the social-media industry.

List of mergers and acquisitions by Facebook

Facebook is a social networking company that has acquired more than 50 companies, including WhatsApp. The WhatsApp acquisition closed at a steep $19 billion; more than $40 per user of the platform. . . .

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook

Now someone might object and say . . . .

. . . “Well. meh. Who cares? I don’t do Facebook anyway.”

Possibly some native Hawaiians MIGHT have thought that awhile back too . . . . UNTIL . . .

(From a prior post of mine)

Zuckerberg had been using the US court system to try to steal land away from Hawaiians

(Update. Zuckerberg is apparently abandoning the court force approach to taking that Hawaiian land he wants. It was catastrophic publicity. He will now apparently shift to other methods to get that land. This Hawaiian mansion will go nicely with Zuck’s California mansion I am sure. And only a couple of mansions as opposed to the twenty or so he COULD afford to build for himself, really helps the planet and global warming er “climate change” and all of that stuff he preaches too! So thanks Mark.)

Mark Zuckerberg is suing Hawaiian land owners to secure his 700-acre island getaway

When privacy is paramount

by Nick Statt@nickstatt Jan 19, 2017, 3:28pm EST

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is going to great lengths to protect his privacy on the Hawaiian island of Kauai, where he purchased a 700-acre plot of land in 2014 for more than $100 million.

Starting last month, Zuckerberg began filing lawsuits against Hawaiian land owners who own small slices of his estate that were passed down from generation to generation, according to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

As many as eight suits have been filed against hundreds of people, some of whom are dead. Notably, this isn’t the first of the social network exec’s attempts to buy his privacy;

Zuckerberg’s plan to teardown and rebuild four of his Palo Alto, California homes surrounding his primary residence was denied last September.

ZUCKERBERG OWNS KAUAI LAND THAT BELONGS IN PART TO HAWAIIAN FAMILIES

The Facebook chief is using a legal maneuver called “quiet title and partition,” which forces owners of undeveloped land to sell the property in a public highest-bidder auction. . . . Based on Hawaiian law, descendants of those farmers — or descendants of any Hawaiian resident that later purchased land from those farmers — remain the rightful owner, regardless of the existence of a property deed or will.

In one instance, Zuckerberg is suing around 300 people who are descendants of Manuel Rapozo, who bought around two acres of land back in 1894 and reportedly leased the land to a local sugar plantation company. Now, more than 100 years later, the land falls on Zuckerberg’s estate and belongs in part to members of Rapozo’s sprawling family . . . .

theverge.com/2017/1/19/1…perty-lawsuits

People are furious down here’: Hundreds of protesters will amass at Mark Zuckerberg’s Hawaiian wall

Alex Heath Jan. 26, 2017 Business Insider

When Mark Zuckerberg decided to sue hundreds of Hawaiians with ownership rights to small parts of his Kauai estate, he ignited a firestorm of backlash.

Now the Facebook billionaire’s neighbors plan to march in protest this weekend at the 6-foot-high wall he erected last year along Koolau Road, according to the march’s organizer, Joe Hart. . .

. . . Zuckerberg filed eight lawsuits in local court on December 30 against families who collectively inherited 14 parcels of land through the Kuleana Act, a Hawaiian law established in 1850 that for the first time gave natives the right to own the land they lived on.

The 14 parcels together total eight of the roughly 700 acres Zuckerberg owns, but the law gives any direct family member of a parcel’s original owner the right to enter the billionaire’s otherwise private compound. . . .

. . . Hart said he was recently confronted by security guards while walking along a public beach adjacent to Zuckerberg’s property.

“We were walking along and they tried to say that this was private,” he said. “I’ve been walking on this since I was a little kid.”

In a recent interview with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Naoshi Grady said he filed a police report last year after being run off a public trail that runs through part of Zuckerberg’s estate.

“They told me I was on private property,” he told the newspaper. “They were threatening to take my picture and have me arrested. They were aggressive, rude, and disrespectful.” . . .

Representatives for Zuckerberg didn’t respond to Business Insider’s multiple requests for comment for this story. Zuckerberg said in a statement on Tuesday that he was “reconsidering” the lawsuits, which would compel owners of the parcels to sell to the highest bidder.

“Based on feedback from the local community, we are reconsidering the quiet title process and discussing how to move forward,” Zuckerberg said . . .

. . . Hart said he plans to march at the wall every Saturday until Zuckerberg officially drops the lawsuits and meets with his neighbors in person.

“We just want to bring this light to issue,” Hart said. “He’s made his money stealing everyone’s information, which we’ve let him do, but to come down here and start suing everyone, that’s not going to fly down here.”

businessinsider.com/hawai…awsuits-2017-1

But it looks like one way or the other, Zuckerberg will be telling the Hawaiians to “Supersize me!”