European Commission fines Google €2.95B over abusive ad tech practices

Here's a summary of the themes discussed on Hacker News regarding the EU's fine against Google, with direct quotes:

Size of the Fine and Its Impact

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around whether the €3 billion fine is substantial enough to deter Google's behavior, with many believing it's too small to be a genuine deterrent for a company of Google's scale.

"Almost 3bn euros is one hell of a cost of business though, that's approximately a euro for every 2.5 people on the planet"
"3bn is pocket change to them"
"It's 15% of their yearly net profit in the region. Not even revenue. 3bn sounds like a lot because we haven't gotten used to the absurd profit levels that these monstrosities have reached."
"For Google that's a slap on the wrist."
"amelius: Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business."
"thinkingtoilet: Until the rich people who green light things like this go to jail it will literally never stop. Someone, somewhere needs to be responsible for policies that break the law and they need to go to jail."
"givemeethekeys: Cost of doing business. If these fines are to have any teeth, they need to be of a magnitude proportionate to company size. Otherwise, they are more of a petty cash shakedown."
"UrineSqueegee: thats all the EU knows to do"
"jennyholzer: chump change"

Ineffectiveness of Fines and the "Cost of Doing Business" Argument

There's a prevailing sentiment that large corporations like Google will simply absorb such fines as a "cost of doing business" and continue their practices, rather than fundamentally change their behavior. This is exacerbated by the lack of personal accountability for executives.

"amelius: Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business."
"thinkingtoilet: Until the rich people who green light things like this go to jail it will literally never stop. Someone, somewhere needs to be responsible for policies that break the law and they need to go to jail."
"isoprophlex: Agreed. Megacorps where noone has actual honest skin in the game and every unethical decision can be paved over with money are bad news for most of us."
"mc32: How would that work? Infraction > Officers quit; new set of officers > infraction > officers quit; new set of officers…"
"riku_iki: execs will jump with golden parachute after first strike."
"hopelite: Google applying tariffs to itself in Europe might be something the EC may a) investigate and fine Google for ripping off Europeans, and/or b) approve of; they previously considered a big-tech tax to improve competition in Europe. Google would be doing them a favor, and Trump won't send them a nastygram this time around."
"hopelite: Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU."
"BizarroLand: I disagree only because I would be truly shocked if they do not figure out how to get as close to the line as is profitable without crossing over and recover those fines in the future with increased pricing."
"chankstein38: Yeah the reality is they'll probably just find a way to sell MORE data to make the money for these fines."
"mitthrowaway2: This is why the fines should be high enough that a competitor who doesn't engage in abusive practices, and doesn't have fines levied against them, can out-compete the ones that do. Then competitive pressure would prevent companies from just treating fines as a cost of doing business and passing it on to their customers."

EU Regulation Approach and Effectiveness

Commenters debated the EU's regulatory strategy, questioning whether fines are the most effective tool and if the EU is fostering innovation or merely penalizing foreign tech giants.

"isodev: Oh nice. I hope other countries follow suit. It’s quite a shame Google didn’t get Chrome divested from them in the US, would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web."
"fsflover: "would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web". I wish this was true. The healing will be when all ads and marketing will be down to zero."
"oscgurdson: Tax grab."
"nonethewiser: Im not necessarily saying its extortion. Im saying his observation is why the EU could extort Google for a lot more than $3B."
"bee_rider: The EU is threading the needle deftly here, I guess."
"hopelite: But even with that, with Google's advancement in AI generated content, they will likely also dominate the ad generation market soon. The oddest thing is that the EU and Europe in general has all but floundered in many ways regarding the generation of a competitive technology industry. But that's a whole different topic."
"workaccount2: The EU has been chronically unable to fill the gaps in their economy. If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas. There are no major tech companies in Europe, which is so insane it's comical. Let that sink in...a continent full of intelligent tech workers has never been able to get a major tech company off the ground. Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either...."
"workaccount2: Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it. This is like the 4th time they have gone to the Google bank demanding a $1B+ ransom. And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene. I don't know how they expect competition to grow when they block all the sunlight in their tech fields. If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement."
"stopdisinfo910: That’s a complete red herring. This is not Europe racketing Google. Google is losing the same kind of trial everywhere in the world including the US for one simple reason: they are actually using anticompetitive practices in the ad tech market. Honestly the most likely to benefit from this verdict are other American companies. You are welcome for us doing the enforcement your country refuses to do."
"jasonsb: It really wouldn't. We're having the wrong conversation here. The reality is that these fines mean nothing for the average EU consumer. There's really no difference between a consumer in the EU, the US or China. As a EU consumer you win nothing from these fines."
"1over137: Even if I accepted this premise, from a realpolitik lens, why not? The USA has gone to the 'taffif/trade war bank' like 40 times, so maybe fight fire with fire?"
"bee_rider: Just a note, in case anyone thinks this is an insufficient punishment: The Commission has ordered Google (i) to bring these self-preferencing practices to an end; and (ii) to implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has now 60 days to inform the Commission about how it intends to do so. It is on top of ordering them to fix the business practices. They can always issue more fines if Google doesn’t comply. IMO some of us here want to see these companies hurt. That’s a non-goal for the EU, they are looking for compliance, not vengeance or something silly like that."
"impossiblefork: I don't think this decision is wrong, I'm from the EU, and I think companies like Google have too much power anyway, but I don't like the ability of the commission to enforce things. Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians. I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system."

The Role of Advertising and Google's Dominance

Several comments address the fundamental role of advertising in the internet economy and Google's near-monopoly in that space, with some suggesting radical solutions like making marketing illegal.

"roscas: "would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web". I wish this was true. The healing will be when all ads and marketing will be down to zero. This companies like Facebook and Google make their billions putting on your face what you don't want or need and someone else pays them good money for that. You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web."
"kyrra: This is a pipe dream. Advertising always has existed and always will. It comes and goes in different forms, but people like selling things they make or services they provide. Without a way of getting those things in front of people, nothing new could come to light."
"aavaa: While that’s technically true it’s not true about the current type of advertising. The ads we see online now (and the tracking that goes with it) are what, 20 years old? The type of marketing and advertising we live with now is a direct descendent of research and work done in the last century (thanks Bernays). The whole point of Google was to get people answers to questions they have. Our current approach to advertising creates the problems in people’s heads only to immediately sell the solution."
"idle_zealot: > Without a way of getting those things in front of people, nothing new could come to light This argument sounds intuitive, but are we really sure about that? People willingly seek out marketing materials to find things they want to buy. I've seen people flip through coupon books and catalogs as idle entertainment. That plus word of mouth may well be sufficient to keep knowledge of new products and such in circulation. Hell, it might even yield better-informed consumers, allowing the market to function more efficiently."
"idle_zealot: > You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web. I've given some thought to this, and outright banning marketing sounds basically impossible. Not just from a "good luck getting that bill passed" sense, but in a practical one. Where do you draw the line on "marketing"? Presumably my writing a glowing review of a product I like won't be banned, and online banner ads will. I'm not trying to make a "the line is blurry therefore no regulation can happen" argument, rather I think "marketing" isn't really the right line. Specifically, what ought to be banned is the sale of attention."
"scotty79: Entire advertising industry could be replaced by one database of products and services at a fraction of the cost to the consumer."
"tirant: Marketing is extremely necessary in order to have competitive markets. We can discuss about what are the best means or even limits in the contents of advertising but making it illegal is non sense."
"vader1: Very fair. Doing anything with online advertising, either as an advertiser or as a publisher, without it involving any of Google's platforms is nearly impossible."
"29athrowaway: It is not only revenue, it is mining data, feeding it into Gemini and selling it back to people in the form of ML models."
"immibis: Innovation consists of forming unbreakable monopolies and then jacking up prices apparently. What did Google do that its competition didn't?"
"workaccount2: And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil. Maybe he meant in the tech sector. Because I can't take the LVMH sweatshop seriously even if they're making a lot of money. And the other companies on the list, FANG are worth more than all of them combined. I think even Nvidia is worth more than all of them."
"phantomhour: What good is Google when it's reliant on an advertising monopoly itself built entirely on monopolistic and fraudulent exploitation of the rest of the economy. What good is Amazon when it's reliant on crushing all other retail and local manufacturing?"

Potential for Google to Leave the EU / Retaliation

A recurring thought is that Google might retaliate by withdrawing services from the EU, though many dismiss this as an empty threat due to the significant revenue potential within the EU market. There's also speculation about potential US government intervention.

"jjani: Going to pre-empt the comments that always pop up in these topics saying "Google/Meta/Apple will just leave the EU at this rate": Google still has around $20 billion yearly reasons to remain active in the EU. Talking Europe yearly net profit here, post-fine. No, they're not going to say "screw this fine, you can take your $20 billion per year, we're leaving!"."
"phantomhour: The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation."
"delusional: > The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation. My hot take is that if they want to leave, then they can fuck right off. If you think your desires, profits, or business practices extend beyond democracy, then I don't need your business."
"pendenthistory: No, they will not leave the EU because the EU is not reading the room right now. You think Trump will do nothing to protect FAANG? To be honest, despite being European, I'm surprised the US has let itself be pushed around for so long. I don't say I agree with it, it's just realpolitik."
"vkou: Odds aren't terrible that Trump will have a fatal stroke before his term is up, the EU will outlive him, and can't and shouldn't tie its sovereign domestic policy and enforcement to cross-Atlantic chain-yanking that changes direction from week to week."
"outside2344: I think it is more likely that Trump point blank tells them they aren't allowed to pay this and that the EU isn't allowed to fine them any longer."
"ajsnigrutin: And ursula will brag how she got a deal with trump, where google doesn't get fined."
"croes: How about a little tariff reduction to get rid of this fine for Google. That’s how Trump makes his deals. BTW where is the US pushed around? Reversed victim and offender?"
"immibis: If you can prove Google did this, the GDPR fines will make them bankrupt. Corporations are rightfully terrified of breaking GDPR."
"fsflover: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/"
"ivanjermakov: I think Google leaving EU will result in more good than harm by shaping a better landscape for innovation and competition."

Divesting Google's Services (e.g., Chrome)

A strong theme is the idea of breaking up Google's integrated services, particularly separating Chrome from the rest of its ecosystem, though counterarguments are also presented regarding the difficulty and potential consequences of such a move.

"isodev: Oh nice. I hope other countries follow suit. It’s quite a shame Google didn’t get Chrome divested from them in the US, would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web."
"richwater: Running a browser without an ecosystem behind it is a money pit and would be worth almost 0."
"isodev: Doesn’t matter, as consumers, we’re absolutely ducked from all sides as long as our “window into the web” is fully controlled by a single corp. The issue is that Google is both the browser, the web standards, the ads, the mail, the search, the phone, the AI, the maps… not a chance to compete with any of that as long as it’s all in one. The only other barely approaching this level is Apple, and we know they have their own anticompetitive aspects. Allowing corps to grow so much should never have been a thing."
"mupuff1234: And if Chrome were to be divested it would have just gotten swallowed up by a different corp, most likely to end up in worse hands imo. Can you name any other company that if they owned Chrome it would've been better for the users and the web?"
"lawlessone: >Can you name any other company that if they owned Chrome it would've been better for the users and the web? Mozilla? Red Hat? Valve?"
"bitpush: Mozilla already owns a browser, and gets free money from Google to do that. Yet, they have been mismanaging the whole time. What makes you think they'll suddenly do a good job when the funding goes away, and they have to now support a large userbase which pays $0 to use the product."
"LunaSea: Mozilla would immediately go bankrupt because Google wouldn't have to sponsor them anymore."
"bgarbiak: In that case people (some of them at least) would switch to a different browser. Reducing Chrome market share would be healthy for the web too."
"mupuff1234: Or we'll just get a duopoly where Microsoft and Apple control the web, both of which don't really have business incentives to improve it."
"fsflover: Tell that to billions of normies who followed Google's (illegal) ads of Chrome."
"scotty79: If 10% of intel could be "sold" to the government maybe Chrome should be too? And the there could be 20 year ban written into law on selling it back to private."
"jaredklewis: Is it? I use Firefox. Can’t you just not use chrome, no legal interventions required?"
"xandrius: One comes from an orangutan because he wants to get it hard and please his fanbase and the other is because a specific company broke a law of a region. The two couldn't be more different than that. And I find it hard to believe your comment is genuine given the obvious difference."

Transparency and Information Asymmetry in Advertising

Some users pointed to the need for greater transparency in how advertising platforms operate and how data is used to serve ads, suggesting that hiding crucial information in terms of service is a core problem.

"porridgeraisin: Major problem today is information asymmetry. Google giving you free YouTube videos is front and center. Google paying for it by linking your location and this and that fingerprint from here and there is hidden in whitewashed language 3 settings menus deep. Many things are hidden in bottom right of a billboard in fine print, t&c fine prints, etc,. What I propose is the law making sure that all information about the product that you intend to or are forced to by regulation to make public, public in the same measure."
"peterldowns: Can someone elaborate on the first accusation — "DFP favours AdX over rival Ad exchanges by e.g. informing it in advance of the best bid from competitors"? I'd be really curious to understand how it does this, like what information is actually shared that isn't also shared with other ad exchanges"

EU as a Regulator vs. Inhibitor of Tech Growth

A debate emerged about whether the EU's regulatory approach stifles technological innovation or if its actions are necessary to ensure fair competition and protect consumers.

"workaccount2: Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it. This is like the 4th time they have gone to the Google bank demanding a $1B+ ransom. And before we "Just don't break the laws" take note of the fact the the EU has a dead tech scene. I don't know how they expect competition to grow when they block all the sunlight in their tech fields. If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement."
"stopdisinfo910: That’s a complete red herring. This is not Europe racketing Google. Google is losing the same kind of trial everywhere in the world including the US for one simple reason: they are actually using anticompetitive practices in the ad tech market. Honestly the most likely to benefit from this verdict are other American companies. You are welcome for us doing the enforcement your country refuses to do."
"phantomhour: + As much as HN's readership loathes to admit it, regulations like this are "Good, Actually". Google's monopolist practices are bad for both advertisers and services showing ads. Any would-be competitor that arises from Google leaving the market would, by virtue of being forced by law to not be so shitty, be the better option. (And yes, this does also apply to pretty much all of the other big tech regulations as well.) Like, cmon. "Monopolies bad" is capitalism 101. Even the US' regulators thought Google was going too far."
"workaccount2: ...And yet it is the tech giants in the US, oh so praised for their size, that are the "weeds" in many regards. What good is Google when it's reliant on an advertising monopoly itself built entirely on monopolistic and fraudulent exploitation of the rest of the economy."
"FirmwareBurner: >The EU has been chronically unable to fill the gaps in their economy. _ Wait, weren't Merkel's "Fachkräfte" supposed to boost the EU economy to the moon creating tones of innovative companies? /s >If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas. _ Irony is you're being downvoted into oblivion for being 100% correct, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable so you have to be buried in downvotes because nobody can or wants to address this issue."
"croes: Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash. And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil."
"nemo44x: Nvidea has a market cap greater than ALL of Germanys stock market. They should figure this out instead of extorting non-EU companies."
"Xenoamorphous: It’s amusing to see how HN, notoriously pro-privacy and anti-ads seemingly dislikes this kind of news."