The e-mpire strikes back: Google appeals that $1.7bn EU fine for choking web ad rivals

Google has appealed the $1.7bn (€1.49bn, £1.32bn) fine set by the European Commission for strangling rival advertising networks with the firm grip of its dominant search platform. Euro watchdogs fined Google (Alphabet 2018 profit: $30bn) for breaking EU anti-trust laws in March following an investigation into Google AdSense …

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a cost ...

... of doing Evil.

[jake]

Google ads?

What google ads? I see no google ads.

I see no google, either, come to think of it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Google ads?

"I see no google, either, come to think of it ..."

But can Google still see YOU?

(Security Ostrich)

[jake]

Re: Google ads?

No, google can't see me. I drop their entire IP space on the floor at the routers.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they manage to cut the fine by just 10%, I guess it's already worth paying the lawyers... Though I don't see on what grounds they're appealing really. Looks pretty open-and-shut to me.

[Charlie Clark]

I appeal to your better judgement

The sentence The e-mpire strikes back: Google appeals that $1.7bn EU fine does not make sense.

Google can appeal against the fine, or to the court's better sense, or for a fair trial. This is why the preposition is necessary.

[MOH]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

I took it as "Google appeals fine" (which would make sense as a headline) with a "Which fine? That fine!" added, hence "Google appeals that fine" - reads OK to me that way

[Jimmy2Cows]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

Whilst I applaud your grammar pedantry, missing the pedantic grammar nazi alert icon is a schoolboy error.

[Skitt Muphry McKean]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

Google can appeal against the fine, or to the court's better sense, or for a fair trial.

Indeed they can.

They can also just appeal -- with all information about the appeal left unsaid ("Bails fall and Google appeals").

And they can also appeal the fine, without describing whether they are appealing against the fine, or to the court's better sense, or for a fair trial or something else -- just that it is regarding the fine.

All perfectly acceptable to this, and to most, English speakers. Just because you wouldn't say it does not make it ungrammatical.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

I can say I go shop and expect to be understood. But this is grammatically wrong because it is semantically wrong (grammar is subordinate to semantics). English, along with many other languages, has instransitive verbs that do not take direct objects and can, thus, be used without them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

"People called Romanes, they go, the house?"

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

I could say, "Straw Man, your argument is," and also expect to be understood, especially if saying it in a Yoda voice.

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: I appeal to your better judgement

It's an idiom. I know what is meant by it, as do you. The more fully correct version would be something along the lines of "Google is taking the judgment of a fine against them to the court of appeal," but pretty much every English speaker would parse that down to the same meaning.

[chivo243]

Just a sport

Money is a score in a game, just a number to them, Google and The Courts. Readers here in the forums have to take money seriously, more than just a number.

[Jellied Eel]

Too big to fine?

Ok, so being fined a billion sounds like a lot, except in the context of Alphabet's $30bn profit. Especially if what you're being fined for is fundamental to making those billions. Then spend $100m on appealing the fine, and maybe save $500m if you can get the fine reduced, or dropped. But it doesn't seem like the fine really punishes or forces companies to change their behaviour, if they can just treat it as a cost of doing business.

[jake]

Re: Too big to fine?

"The fine doesn't punish or force companies to change their behavio(u)r, they just treat it as a cost of doing business."

FTFY

[Craig 2]

Re: Too big to fine?

Any company that appeals and loses should have their fine at least doubled. Not only have they been found guilty of whatever bad behaviour in the first place, they have then willfully tried to avoid the punishment.

[Securitymoose]

Ads? What are they?

They can all waste their money as they like. with a good blockers for third party cookies, scripts, device recognition etc., you don't need to see any of them. It's all the scammers scamming each other, convincing themselves that people are actually seeing their ads. (and paying people for clicking on them so that it looks like anyone gives a damn.) "What about my fondleslab?" I hear you cry. If you do everything on that via a browser, you too can resist the scourge of modern communication just as well.

[89724102172714182892114I7551670349743096734346773478647892349863592355648544996312855148587659264921]

Google of late seems to be having some sort of identity crisis - it thinks it's the actual internet; redefining email, how websites connect and are coded... flirting with new products and services before rapidly discarding them, leaving users floundering... I wonder how long they're new gaming platform will last before they decide it isn't making any money and strangle it in it's cot. Google needs to be brought to heel.