458
submitted 1 year ago by JVT038@feddit.nl to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

The lawsuit argues that Google has effectively ‘bought’ the UK mobile phone search engine market. Google forced mobile phone handset manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search and Google Chrome browser apps on devices that use Google’s Android operating system in order to obtain a licence to use Google Play.

Google also unlawfully paid billions to Apple to ensure that it was the default search engine on iPhones and other devices that used Apple’s iOS operating system. In 2019, Google paid £1.2 billion to Apple in the UK to be the default search engine on the Safari browser.

It is claimed that Google has used its market dominance to effectively charge advertisers over the odds. Costs were then passed on to such an extent that all consumers ended up paying higher prices for goods and services sold by brands that have advertised on the platform.

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] oscarlavi@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

I tend to be pretty pessimistic about these cases. Even if the UK Govt win, Google won't change anything, or if they do the change will be subtle enough to not have any impact

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I'm not so sure, if it is quite expensive and carries on being quite expensive, they may need to make changes to default search or default browsers. If this can help people get Firefox easier, this could start to chip away at the viability of WEI (web DRM).

[-] knorke3@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

quite expensive

this is a £7 billion fine against a company that can afford to pay apple £1.2 billion for a system default...

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Because they gain more from it. They pay Firefox for default search. There is a return on investment. $7bn is a larger cost and would need greater revenue from those activities to justify it. Whether they do or not, from the UK market, we'll have to wait and see, but it is a reasonable dint.

[-] Nerrad@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Just cost of doing business for Google

[-] coffeeaddict@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

7 billion is not just "cost of business" for Google lmao
Some of you are so out if touch from this world if you think Google isn't really concerned about such an amount

[-] Kissaki@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

Who is eligible for compensation?

... all UK consumers who bought goods or services from a business who advertised using search advertising services provided by Google. This is effectively everyone in the UK.

Consumers do not have to have seen these goods and services advertised on Google, or used Google to have purchased the goods or services. This is because the claim says that these inflated prices were paid by everyone if the business advertised on Google.

Consumers affected by the Google claim could be owed around £100 if the claim is won. They will not pay costs or fees to participate. The claim is being funded by global litigation funder Hereford Litigation.

An interesting case and claim. Indirect correlation.

[-] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Make them cry.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Let's say google is fined 7B. Is there any real competition for the search engine space. Maybe Bing the next big mainstream service. Brave? DDG? They all have some flaw though and isn't as seamless as Google.

[-] Spudwart@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

True, but imo ddg has gotten pretty close in terms of capability.

But Google has become the Walmart of the internet. The only thing their missing is a literal storefront.

Need email? Gmail. Need a browser? Google Chrome Want entertainment? YouTube Search engine? Google Phone OS? Android (most) Chromebooks, Google Office Suite, AdSense.

Google has way too much power over the internet.

[-] LouisGarbuor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I think Google Shopping counts as a storefront

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I haven't tried DDG ever since the whole Microsoft fiasco but I'll give it another try. I do agree with everything else you said though. Thank goodness I have degoogled my devices.

[-] GaveUp@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Yandex works pretty well

[-] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ahhh, feels good, my faith in humanity is (briefly) restored, waiting to see them actually pay it

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't get excited until it's successful. They got expensive lawyers.

[-] yoz@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Meh Cost of doing business which is already accounted.

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe so but it's still a step in the right direction. Legal precedent is important to pave the way for larger changes.

I wish we had some leadership with the balls to do some post industrial revolution style trust busting

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
458 points (99.1% liked)

Privacy

31885 readers
418 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS