Google Fined for Unfair Online Ad Market
Google Fined for Unfair Online Ad Market
Google has been fined nearly $3.5 billion for unfairly manipulating the online ad markets. European Commission officials said the move had harmed rival companies and may have meant higher prices on consumer products.
The ruling has not only been condemned by Google but could cause diplomatic and economic disputes between the European Union and United States.
The case is about advertising exchanges, which are systems where would-be advertisers and websites wanting to display ads for money are brought together. The theory is the exchanges automatically find the most efficient pairings, meaning websites get as much revenue as possible, while advertisers get the most effective placement for their ads.
Conflict Of Interests
However, in most cases advertisers and websites don't deal directly with the ad exchanges. They instead deal with intermediaries. For example, businesses wanting to advertise will often use a service that collects their chosen keywords and target audience and then looks for places to advertise. Meanwhile websites will often use services that mean they simply put a piece of code on their site and ads are automatically created and inserted to be seen by specific individual visitors.
Google operates both advertising platforms and a major advertising exchange, creating a potential conflict of interests. The European Commission ruled that Google exploited this conflict of interests unlawfully.
It says the setup meant Google had advanced knowledge of how much advertisers were willing to pay and took advantage in a way that disproportionately steered them towards using its own advertising platform. Officials say this meant advertisers overpaid and may in turn have passed the extras costs on to consumers.
Not First Offense
The fine of 2.95 billion euros was decided by factors including the turnover of the advertising exchange, the severity and length of time of the breaches, and the fact Google has been fined for similar market dominance abuses in the past. The European Commission also wants Google to explain how it can mitigate the conflict of interests. (Source: europa.eu)
Google says it disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal, arguing that the ad market remains competitive. Meanwhile the US president called it discrimination against the US of a type that that could result retaliatory tariffs. That's despite Google having also lost a US antitrust case on the same topic, with penalties to be decided in a hearing later this month. (Source: Bloomberg.com)
What's Your Opinion?
How should competition laws work online? Does it matter if the same company handles multiple elements of the advertising process? Does any of this matter for ordinary web users?

My name is Dennis Faas and I am a senior systems administrator and IT technical analyst specializing in cyber crimes (sextortion / blackmail / tech support scams) with over 30 years experience; I also run this website! If you need technical assistance , I can help. Click here to email me now; optionally, you can review my resume here. You can also read how I can fix your computer over the Internet (also includes user reviews).
We are BBB Accredited
We are BBB accredited (A+ rating), celebrating 21 years of excellence! Click to view our rating on the BBB.


Comments
Who benefits?
Google may lose and pay or win on appeal, but not likely.
Regardless, what will the 3bn Euros fix?
The internet is like water. It will flow.
Who Benefits?
I agree Chief. Not a single dime of that "penalty" will go to a user because not a single user can "prove" this action harms him/her. In fact, there is no method of "fixing" such a business practice because such a practice is "normal" for integrate companies. You attempt to control costs by being your own supplier of raw materials, your own producer of finished goods, your own sales force to sell those goods, your own PR firm to produce a strong public persona. This is normal among business and the only difference with GOOGLE is size. Too many in the world, BIG IS BAD, not efficient.