Google Ordered to Pay $2 Billion For Anti-Competitive Practices By Swedish Court (msn.com)
- Reference: 0184326566
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/07/06/0510248/google-ordered-to-pay-2-billion-for-anti-competitive-practices-by-swedish-court
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/google-told-to-pay-klarna-nearly-2-billion-in-shopping-spat/ar-AA26Yyu2
> The Patent and Market Court in Stockholm, which issued the judgment on Wednesday, dismissed most parts of the claim in which Pricerunner sought 80 billion Swedish kronor, or roughly $8.2 billion, in the wake of a European Union antitrust crackdown... The Swedish price-comparison website argued that Google has been abusing its dominant position as a search engine by favoring its own comparison shopping service over competing portals for more than a decade. Wednesday's award compensates for lost revenue caused by Google's preferential treatment of its own comparison-shopping service over independent price-comparison services, conduct that also drives up costs for consumers, [Pricerunner owner] Klarna said in a statement after the judgment...
>
> A Google spokesperson said the company doesn't agree with the court's decision and will consider its legal options. [The ruling can be appealed.] Changes implemented in 2017 to Google's platform are working and generating growth and jobs for hundreds of comparison shopping services operating more than 1500 websites across Europe, according to the statement.
>
> The litigation is linked to a 2017 decision by the European Commission to fine Google €2.4 billion for illegally leveraging its search dominance to give its own shopping service an edge. The EU decision unleashed a wave of so-called follow-on suits, which were delayed for years as Google appealed the EU fine. Two years ago the EU's top tribunal confirmed that the company did violate antitrust laws — meaning EU-based plaintiffs no longer have to prove that in court. A Berlin court last year ordered the tech giant to pay €573 million in damages to two German price-comparison websites, a ruling Google appealed. Similar cases are pending across Europe.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/google-told-to-pay-klarna-nearly-2-billion-in-shopping-spat/ar-AA26Yyu2
Kinda Funny (Score:2, Insightful)
These countries appear to have the pecuniary extraction model. Go after the deepest pockets, and come up with some way to take some of their money, because reasons.
Here in the US, we see something like that in the class action suits, where a million or two who "suffered" from some indignity might sign up for a class action suit.
The lawyers get almost all the awards, and upon winning, the people "wronged" get checks for 5 dollars.
I suppose the difference is that in Sweden, the 2 billion will go el
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we simply still enforce laws, including competition ones.
On the other side, it looks like in the US you just decided to hand them over the control of your country.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
> No, we simply still enforce laws, including competition ones. On the other side, it looks like in the US you just decided to hand them over the control of your country.
You know, are you paid for your hatred? A person draws a comparison between the Class action suits in America, and fining a company, and you cannot avoid making it an anti American thing. Apparently defending Sweden's action. Here's the part you don't think about. Sweden will do something with the money. They want the money. But with 110,605,500 population, There will eventually be a decision made. Does constant fining cause it to be unprofitable to have a presence there?
That's the part I don't get. Why
Re:Kinda Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't a fine. They're being sued for damages. The money goes to the litigant, not to "Sweden". If Google want to avoid constantly paying damages, they should consider not constantly doing illegal things. It's ironic that you're accusing Europeans of wanting to be anti-competitive when this whole thing is about (American) Google's anti-competitive practices.
Re: (Score:2)
> It isn't a fine. They're being sued for damages. The money goes to the litigant, not to "Sweden". If Google want to avoid constantly paying damages, they should consider not constantly doing illegal things. It's ironic that you're accusing Europeans of wanting to be anti-competitive when this whole thing is about (American) Google's anti-competitive practices.
It's funny that Europeans can only use Google. There are other search engines, If you didn't want the money, you could make a law that eliminates Google. Ban them. It isn't hard. DDG, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex. And demanding tribute from the dominant service is an attempt to make them less competitive.
Now, show us the exact damages that google is illegally doing. If so, why are they not in criminal court. EU has criminal courts as well, don't they.
I'll await your answer of what crime it is.
Meanwhile, the
Re: (Score:2)
> And demanding tribute from the dominant service is an attempt to make them less competitive.
No, enforcing consumer protection laws facilitates competition.
> Now, show us the exact damages that google is illegally doing. If so, why are they not in criminal court. EU has criminal courts as well, don't they.
They were already found guilty in criminal court. Now that guilt has been established, parties harmed by their illegal actions are suing for damages. You're either playing dumb or didn't even read the summa
Re: (Score:2)
>> And demanding tribute from the dominant service is an attempt to make them less competitive.
> No, enforcing consumer protection laws facilitates competition.
>> Now, show us the exact damages that google is illegally doing. If so, why are they not in criminal court. EU has criminal courts as well, don't they.
> They were already found guilty in criminal court. Now that guilt has been established, parties harmed by their illegal actions are suing for damages. You're either playing dumb or didn't even read the summary before commenting.
>> I'll await your answer of what crime it is.
> Even the summary gives you a reasonable run-down on that.
Perhaps there is a difference in interpretation here. In the USA there are civil cases, and criminal cases. A civil case can receive monetary penalties. The plaintiff if they win are considered to be "made whole", not reap a windfall.
A criminal case involves possible fines unrelated to being "made whole", a criminal record, and incarceration and or probation.
There is a difference.
If this was in US criminal court, there would be a chance that the person at the top could end up in a cell (think Elizabet
Re: (Score:2)
> You know, are you paid for your hatred? A person draws a comparison between the Class action suits in America, and fining a company, and you cannot avoid making it an anti American thing.
Pointing out obvious differences between Europe's legal system and the utter failure of the American regulators to enforce existing anti-trust laws back home isn't hatred, it's observation. No one made it an American thing, it *IS* an American thing. If it weren't an American thing then America would have brought the same suit.
No one is hating on you here, and if you feel offended either personally or nationally at the observation they maybe you should look at getting your house in order at home.
On the othe
Re: (Score:2)
Constant fining? This fine is barely a blip on the quarterly report. [1]https://s206.q4cdn.com/4793605... [q4cdn.com]
Swedish citizens actually get services and infrastructure from the taxes paid.
[1] https://s206.q4cdn.com/479360582/files/doc_financials/2026/q1/2026q1-alphabet-earnings-release.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
What you appear to hate is a government doing it's job, protecting it's people and business interests. America does the same thing. More aggressively so with tariffs and snarling up the Straits of Hormuz for everyone.
I like America and almost all Americans I have met. At the moment America has a corrupt, cruel, bullying and unpopular administration that has done nothing to make America great again apart from make some rich, richer and the ordinary people worse off. Many people look forward to it passing, a
Re: (Score:1)
> These countries appear to have the pecuniary extraction model. Go after the deepest pockets, and come up with some way to take some of their money, because reasons.
I understand the sentiment, but as a logical thought it's incomplete without an analysis of reasons. If the reasons are good, Google deserves to pay (maybe the lawyers don't deserve the penalty money, but that's a separate issue).
Re: (Score:2)
>> These countries appear to have the pecuniary extraction model. Go after the deepest pockets, and come up with some way to take some of their money, because reasons.
> I understand the sentiment, but as a logical thought it's incomplete without an analysis of reasons. If the reasons are good, Google deserves to pay (maybe the lawyers don't deserve the penalty money, but that's a separate issue).
Well, the biggest reason is a philosophical difference between Europe and the USA. As noted in the article, after a suit in 2017, (2.4 B Euro) there were a lot of follow on suits. Sweden's is one.
Europe appears to want to limit competition to the point - IMO - where dominance is considered bad and must be punished. There are other search engines out there. There is DDG, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex if you dare. I use Google about once a year - I don't even find it to be the best. But there is something a little o
Re: (Score:2)
What's mission in this analysis is any consideration of whether Google was favoring anticompetitively favoring their own product over Klarna.
While there is an argument to be made that the EU has done cash grabs in the past, there is also an argument to be made that Google has acted anticompetitively in the past.
If they act anticompetitively it distorts the free market.
Re: (Score:2)
> What's mission in this analysis is any consideration of whether Google was favoring anticompetitively favoring their own product over Klarna. While there is an argument to be made that the EU has done cash grabs in the past, there is also an argument to be made that Google has acted anticompetitively in the past. If they act anticompetitively it distorts the free market.
Whatever is going on, I'm having fun triggering the bejabbers out of our superiors! 8^)
Especially the Einstein that claims 'Murrica doesn't have any other payment method than checks - we invented the other method for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
No the Swedish citizens won't get checks, for several reasons, one because checks are really suspensiv ways hof handeling payments (banks charge ridicules processing fees). And as others have said this case is between Pricerunner (now klarna) and google, so any compensation wil end up in klarnas accounts, if it would have been the sweedish government they would have giotten the money and used it to cover expenses or pay down debt (which would not be a bad thing)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh mu bad, is "getting a check" a colonialism for gering payed rather than an indication of the method of payment. I would think yhat in 2026 thera are way better ways of setheling payments, but I keep forgetting that the IS banking syste seams rather too fomd f things rooted in the previous century.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you illiterate? "Payed" is something to do with ropes, "seams" are what you see on your clothes. And that doesn't include all the other words you butchered.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you illiterate? "Payed" is something to do with ropes, "seams" are what you see on your clothes. And that doesn't include all the other words you butchered.
Dude seems to think we don't have every other form of payment as well. Yeah, literacy and logic do appear to be missing from his competencies. But he obviously hates 'Murrica, so he is golden on present day Slashdot.
I know there have always been kooks on Slashdot, but they seem to be taking over at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
> Oh mu bad, is "getting a check" a colonialism for gering payed rather than an indication of the method of payment. I would think yhat in 2026 thera are way better ways of setheling payments, but I keep forgetting that the IS banking syste seams rather too fomd f things rooted in the previous century.
Feel that hatred. Let it consume you! It is your destiny.
Oh summer child. I used the colloquialism "Check" because it is understood by people as a payment method. perhaps not by you.
Here in the US, we might get a "check" via the paper that triggered you to spittle flecked rage, or a debit card, or direct deposit. Or PayPal, or Venmo or any of the other payment services. We here can even request the method.
Since I angered you to spout actual lies, and two rage comments forgive me, but I must ask.....
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they could use the reciepts to fund a better spell checker.
Re: (Score:2)
> because reasons
Can you honestly say that Google *hasn't* prioritised its own services over other people's in search results? Google search has been getting worse and worse over time in part *because* they've been forcing us to have youtube links instead of ordinary web sites, big companies over small ones, commercial sell-you-something results over commentary blogs and other not-really-for-profit content, AI results we didn't ask for, inevitable ads for stuff... and so on.
I couldn't tell you if priceru
Re: (Score:2)
" sign up for a class action suit"
could not find any mention of this being a class action suit
Re: (Score:2)
> " sign up for a class action suit" could not find any mention of this being a class action suit
I do not see exactly where I said it was a class action suit. I was comparing the class action suits common in the USA to the pecuniary extraction in this instance. Come on you didn't understand that, or have I just triggered you?
Protip, I used the word "similar" in comparison between the CAS's in the US, and the outright fines in the EU. Both are pecuniary extraction.
I'd think a EU citizen, would know that, being better than us in all ways.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard to be better than you is it? We could warm up a turd in a microwave and it would be more coherent and less hysterical.
Re: (Score:2)
> Go after the deepest pockets
What makes you say that? There's hundreds of rulings about breaches of competition law in the EU every year, mostly against small local companies. Is your complaint that you live in a big American bubble and only hear about the ones that affect big American companies?
> The lawyers get almost all the awards, and upon winning, the people "wronged" get checks for 5 dollars.
Class action suits aren't about making the claimants whole. They were exclusively about punishing the defendant. As a class member the direct affect of the action on you personally can't be judged, so it's not physically possible for the courts
Re: (Score:2)
>> Go after the deepest pockets
> What makes you say that? There's hundreds of rulings about breaches of competition law in the EU every year, mostly against small local companies. Is your complaint that you live in a big American bubble and only hear about the ones that affect big American companies?
Oh goodness, you are comparing Google to tiny businesses that exist in the EU.
Okay, Let's assume that this is an apples to Apples comparison - there must be a list of the small local American companies that have been forced to pay billions to the EU. Since this is somehow the same thing.
I'll wait for that list, I'm sure you have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Class action suits are to punish companies, not offer compensation to those wronged. If you’re after a payout then you file your own private suit.
The real liability (Score:2)
Why would they favor their competition over themselves? Like logically, why would they? Especially if they're better. If you want to go after Google for something, scam ads selling Chinese counterfeits, fake cancer cures, fake prescriptions. They're basically facilitating crime openly and knowlingly.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't required to favor their competition over themselves. They just aren't allowed to favor themselves over competition.
If they're better, they'll succeed anyway. If their worse, we don't want them to favor a worse offering just because of near-monopolistic market dominance?
Oh dear (Score:1)
Tariff Trump is about to shit out a TRUTH storm from his golden toilet. Brace yourselves for the all-cap message from the world's biggest crybaby.
Injust (Score:2)
Companies violate antitrust law and then can sit it out in court. Only the lawyers win.
Is it 2bil (Score:2)
or 8.2bil? clean up the article summary.
Joke's on them (Score:2)
Google isn't Swedish.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe change the language to xx-bork?
Re:Joke's on them (Score:4, Informative)
It is. They have offices all over the world, including in Sweden. It gives them access to local businesses, but it also means that they are bound by local laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for all practical matters, the company that operates Volvo in China is Chinese, and will have to abide by decisions of Chinese authorities. Just like the branch that operates Google in Sweden has to obey decisions of Swedish tribunals.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a dispute between PriceRunner and Google, and PriceRunner is Swedish.
The EU Commission has already ruled that damage has occurred in the Nordic countries and the UK.
PriceRunner was acquired by Klarna, which is also Swedish but active in 17 countries.