EU alleges Google skews search results to boost its own products and services

“Google faces a new antitrust attack from European Union regulators who allege the search engine skews results in its own favor and unfairly restricts rival online advertising platforms,” Aoife White and Stephanie Bodoni report for Bloomberg. “The European Commission sent the Alphabet Inc. unit two statements of objections Thursday, widening a five-year probe and increasing the risk of hefty fines for the U.S. Internet giant.”

“Adding to an antitrust complaint over Google’s Android smartphone software earlier this year, EU regulators said they have ‘a broad range of additional evidence and data’ that Google systematically favors its own comparison-shopping service in its general search results,” White and Bodoni report. “‘We see that happen very, very, very often,”’ EU Antitrust Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told journalists Thursday, about how often Google pushes its own search results. ‘This is where we have the strongest evidence and it’s the same kind of investigation that we are pursuing when it comes to travel and local search to see if we find a pattern that suggests that Google is abusing a dominant position in general search.'”

“Google also hindered competition for online ads with its AdSense for Search product to place advertising on websites, including retailers, telecommunications operators and newspapers, the commission said,” White and Bodoni report. “The company prevented customers from accepting rival search ads from 2006 and maintained restrictions on how competitors’ ads were displayed when it altered contracts in 2009, according to the EU’s antitrust arm.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Imagine if your livelihood depended on one company that had not only monopolized web search (and, thereby, basically controlled how new customers find you), but also controlled the bulk of online advertising dollars which funded your business and which they could pull, simply threaten to pull, or reduce rates at any time? Now also imagine if you believe this monopolist basically stole the product of another company that is the very subject of your business? How much would you criticize the monopolist thief’s business practices?

You might guess that it would be a tough road to walk. (We’re only imagining, of course!)

That would be a good example of why monopolies are bad for everyone.

The U.S. government has utterly failed to police Google. Because the people with the power to do so currently are corrupt. Follow the money. Hopefully, the European Union will help to correct the situation.

In the meantime, stop using Google search and Google products wherever possible. Monopolies are bad for everyone.

Eric Schmidt-backed startup stealthily working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House – October 9, 2015
U.S. FTC report details how Google skewed search results in its own favor – March 20, 2015
The FTC’s missed opportunity on Google – January 4, 2013
Google to settle U.S. FTC antitrust probe, sources say – January 2, 2013
Obama to reward Google’s Schmidt with Cabinet post? – December 5, 2012
Google outfoxes U.S. FCC – April 17, 2012
Consumer Watchdog calls for probe of Google’s inappropriate relationship with Obama administration – January 25, 2011
Wired: Google, CIA Invest in ‘future’ of Web monitoring – July 29, 2010


  1. “The U.S. government has utterly failed to police Google. Because the people with the power to do so currently are corrupt”

    And they always will be so long as it takes $1 BILLION dollars to win a job (i.e., for POTUS) that pays $1.4 MILLION over 4 years. The money has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it?

    Now imagine if the playing field were leveled such that EVERYONE running for office had EXACTLY the same amount of money to spend and COULDN’T spend more. Suddenly, lobbyists would be out of a job, politicians would no longer be (so obviously) bought, the playing field would be leveled so that the most competent person won (and not just the one with the most money) and we might actually get people in office who’s first loyalty is to the people who elected them (i.e., the voters) instead of the people who elected them (i.e., the lobbyists who pay for all their campaign costs).

    There really isn’t any democracy in America anymore (not sure there ever was, but there certainly isn’t now). Voters don’t elect anyone- the lobbyists do (and they’re paying off both sides- so it’s win-win for them).

    1. Yes, imagine that incumbents in Congress, members of the two current political parties, got to decide who was eligible to receive funding for his/her election campaign. It would be the death of the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and any non-mainstream politician. Besides being unconstitutional.

      1. Not at all! Any party that gets x number of signatures would be eligible for funding from the government. Even with all that, it would probably be cheaper than the current system. AND it would actually INCREASE the number of small parties.

  2. You think? Google, like every business exist to make a profit. More successful business are better at maximizing their profits. Of course they are going to do everything they can to promote their goods and services. The shocking thing is that for some apparently this is news or worse, they think it’s wrong.

  3. Gee if this is true it might give the impression that Google’s country of origin doesn’t know how to play on a level playing field. After all they are getting a pretty good reputation at defending a lack of morality with superior weaponry.

    Reminds me of miniflacid.

    I put the /shjtt tag here to indicate that this post is satire, humor, joke, tall tale and a special BONUS today to anyone who can decrypt decipher or determine which actual real company I’m referring too in a humorous way when I refer to miniflacid.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.