Swedish court says Google is to pay $1.5B to Klarna in antitrust damages

People aren't going to like this, but taking a page from Apple, Microsoft, Sony (iPhone, Xbox, Playstation), the solution to constant antitrust charges stemming from competitors on your platform....is to kick them off the platform. You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors.

So what is the resolution supposed to be? Randomize the results whenever a user searches for a vague product category that is also something that Google provides?

The article is pretty light on detail about what "favoring their own service" actually meant. Just that it appeared above Klarna's when a user searched BNPL?

It all seems vague and hard to cure. The algorithm is typically very good at surfacing the least shitty option, so if the resolution is "well you have to jumble them now" that's strictly worse for me as a consumer.

The problem is Google/Apple and these people that self-identify as platforms" should probably divest from providing any 1st party services on their "platforms".

Klarna is a buy-now-pay-later company, right? How do they compete with google?

Wondering if Google can take out a BNPL plan to cover the damages

This is effectively just a tariff. An extremely large and disproportionate fine on a foreign company so that the local company has a better chance to compete.

This comes years after this fine was upheld about Google shopping in an EU court. I guess prisjakt (another Swedish website that works just like pricerunner) could do the same now.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac...

Klarna bought pricerunner for just under a billion 5 years ago, pretty good deal.

This is one of the Price Runner sites: https://www.pricerunner.com/ And this is Google Shopping: https://www.google.com/search?q=laptops&sca_esv=a6fae943e924...

Google gave its own price comparison service favorable treatment in search results, thereby abusing their dominance in the search market:

"Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query into the Google search engine in relation to which Google's comparison shopping service wants to show results, these are displayed at or near the top of the search results.

Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results: rival comparison shopping services appear in Google's search results on the basis of Google's generic search algorithms. Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions.

As a result, Google's comparison shopping service is much more visible to consumers in Google's search results, whilst rival comparison shopping services are much less visible."

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_17_...

It is similar to Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices of the 1990's. There is no legal uncertainty at all -- Google must have know that its conduct was illegal and deserve to pay hundreds of billions in punitive damages.

Didn't Google have a previous lawsuit against foundem? Not a fan of Google but foundem were fucking awful.

$1.5B is significant, but the bigger question is whether this actually changes how dominant platforms rank their own services.

Is this real accountability for anti-competitive behaviour, or just another cost of doing business for Big Tech?

My cynicism is tell me that unfortunately it is the latter.

> PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favoured its price comparison service for many years

Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?