Google fined a sum of 2.42 billion for abuse of dominant position

The European Commission (EC) forced in June 2017 a fine of 2.42 billion euros to Google, the highest given to that date by the EU Competition specialists against a single organization, for mistreating its predominant situation as a web search engine on the internet by giving "illicit" profits to your correlation purchasing management.

The fine Brussels imposed on the aberration of innovation for deliberately leaning towards its securities screening administration, Google Shopping, over its opponents in its web crawler results, came after a seven-year debate between Brussels and the American organization.

Above all, the General Court presumes that by leaning towards its own value examination administration on its global results pages through better display and placement.

While at the same time recording the after-effects of contending correlation administrations on those pages through ranking calculations, Google dealt with gravity-hostile practices.

Likewise, the General Court considers that there is an abuse of a dominant position when the predominant effort, by resorting to strategies other than those that supervise the ordinary competition, disturbs the rivalry or the development of said competition, by being able to limit the meeting.

In any event, the General Court considers that the European Commission has not shown that Google's direct action has affected the market for hunting administrations in general.

The General Court also reasons that, although the calculations for the positioning of the non-exclusive results or the rules for positioning and displaying the results of the particular articles of Google can be directed to favor the improvements of the aid in the market.

This does not legitimize the inconsistent treatment of the consequences of Google's securities correlation administration and the downstream effects of competing security's examination administrations.

Furthermore, the General Court considers that Google has not presented productivity increases related to this training that outweigh its negative consequences on competition.

Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager stated that the Mountain View (California) organization.

Not only do you attract customers by offering an article that is superior to those of your adversaries, but Google has mishandled its prevailing situation as a web crawler by positioning its own exam purchasing management higher on its indexed lists and ranking of their rivals below.

What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust law, as it has denied different organizations the ability to improve and compete for their profits.

Most importantly, it has prevented European buyers from making a real decision to get administrations and all the benefits of development.

The moment a person buys online they need to look at the items they are looking for effectively and quickly and the sponsors to advance them.

This is why Google displays shopping ads, with the full intention of interconnecting the customer with many advertisers, small and large, in a way that is valuable to both, Google urged.

The penalty, according to Brussels, was determined based on the value of Google's revenue earned by its administration of exam purchases across the thirteen nations of the EEA.

The advice on the fine of 4,300 million

The consultation in the General Court of the European Union on the demand of 4,300 million dollars that the European Commission imposed on Google in 2018 ended on October 1, after five days, anticipating the sentence: the European legal executive must decide on a case which has been the largest fine imposed by Brussels to date.

The head of the EU blames Google for having agreed to agreements with mobile manufacturers and administrators of organizations that have allowed it through Android to maintain the prevailing situation of its search tool on the web, reports Efe.

Specifically, the Commission considers that from around 2011 there were illegal agreements with which the organization forced the Google Search web crawler and the Google Chrome program to be pre-installed on Android gadgets, assuming that the producers needed to sell the terminals with their Play Store applications.

Google bought Android in 2005 and, since then, has been in charge of promoting the various adaptations of this open source framework.

Android does not contain any pre-introduced applications and, according to Google, most manufacturers need to sell their devices with the Play Store to reach more customers.

Under the constant watch of the court, it held that in exchange for allowing them the Play Store, it empowers producers to introduce Google Search and Google Chrome to get a monetary advantage for planning a free framework.

The Commission refuted the argument, guaranteeing that the organization does not have to fix these provisions, since as of now it acquires billions of dollars a year with the Play Store.

Likewise, he argued that by having previously introduced a web crawler, customers have less motivation to download one more from the opposition, to the point that in 2016, more than 95% of searches on Android gadgets with Search and Chrome were made to through Google administration.

The organization, in any event, argued that not at all like what the Commission endorsed, Android has widened the rivalry, rather than diminished it.

Based on his adaptation, he has planned a schedule that assures rival versatile app engineers that their apps work on all Android gadgets, paying little attention to the manufacturer.

A circumstance that did not occur at the beginning of the 21st century, when engineers needed to plan various adaptations of the equivalent application for the different variants of the Symbian framework used by manufacturers such as Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung or Motorola.

Furthermore, Brussels blames Google for having paid mobile phone manufacturers not to introduce programs other than their own.

Google saved itself by claiming that they only accounted for 5% of its share of the global industry, which ended in 2014, before the fine was charged, and that its adversaries could have scored comparative deals.

In its examination, Brussels also focused on whether Apple gadgets present real competition to Android gadgets and reasoned that it is not true, incompletely, because the cost of the previous ones is greater than that of the last option, and they are not available to a part of buyers.

Google guarantees that 89% of those gathered during the test reacted that Apple and Android "compete seriously". In total, the European Commission has fined Google more than 8.2 billion dollars.