More like an ATM. Need some money? Let an American tech company operate with no issue for years and then one day "whoa we checked and you've been violating <some vaguely-defined law about privacy> for years. Who knew? That'll be five billion Euros please."

▲

shmeeed an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's one way to see it, if you squint hard enough.

As I see it, a company unlawfully gained billions by breaking the law while doing business in our jurisdiction.

There's nothing "vaguely defined" about european privacy laws. Google just chose to ignore them best they could, and thought they'd get away with it because they're so big.

The fact that it took years to build a solid case against their myriad of corporate lawyer weasels isn't the gotcha you think it is.

▲

realusername 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If anything, the EU has been slow to act, these companies have been operating against all possible antitrust laws for years and continue to do so despite being fined, probably the fine isn't large enough.

▲

xxs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>That'll be five billion Euros please."

feel free to pull out of the market, if you dislike the rules. Google pulled out of China for instance.

	▲	knollimar 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That seems like a corcular argument. Is this not chiefly a complaint about the rules? Saying "if Google doesn't like the rule it can leave" is a non argument.

▲

hparadiz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's literally what is happening here. It's a shakedown. Nothing more.

▲

petesergeant 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's a shakedown. Nothing more.

Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ, or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true.

▲

xienze 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ

You're of course making the assumption the ECJ isn't biased towards ruling in favor of the EU in these disputes...

> or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true.

Isn't there a formal "pay up or else" demand attached? If Google doesn't pay, then what? I would take this a lot more seriously if the EU said "look, these violations are so egregious we simply can't trust you to operate in the EU anymore." No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first.

	▲	cbg0 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first. This is false. They were asked to: - Stop tying Google Search and Chrome to the Play Store. - Permit competing Android versions. - Stop exclusivity incentives for Google Search. - Provide genuine room for rival search engines and browsers. This is separate from the fine and they were given 90 days in 2018 to comply with the above.
	▲	piva00 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The fine is not a one-and-done like fines are levied against corporations in the USA, most fines against corporations in the EU can be levied many times if the infringing behaviour is not corrected.
	▲	Kbelicius 27 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first. But google did change how they do things thanks to this case thus making everything you wrote some anti-government fiction.