by Mathnerd314 on 10/26/24, 11:50 PM
But Google didn't pay 2 billion to the couple - it went to the EU government. So now they have a civil lawsuit...
by alwa on 10/26/24, 11:55 PM
The deranking in question happened in
2006? Goodness. That’s, what… more than half of the WWW’s lifetime ago? And 7 years since the 2017 judgment?
The wheels of justice turn slow and all, but man… this has to come as awfully cold comfort (assuming, as the courts found, this couple was in fact wronged).
by CamelCaseName on 10/26/24, 11:50 PM
I'm confused, Google deprioritized their site in search results, and then several years later launched their own shopping comparison tool.
And this is the basis of an unfair competition case?
On what basis then should or shouldn't Google deprioritize rankings? If a website offers products for $1 and hides a $99 shipping fee, should they still appear in the search results?
by mianos on 10/26/24, 11:35 PM
I wonder, at what point, the accounting department works out a market becomes unprofitable and Google withdraws. I guess it's good for some local company to take up the reigns. Maybe that's the long term goal of the EU regulation?
by tim333 on 10/27/24, 12:56 PM
While I'm sure there are good arguments on both sides, stuff like this contributes to why the US dominates high tech and the EU lags. If you start a web service searching for things you don't want to be bogged down in court by your competitors saying your results weren't quite as they'd like them.
by IshKebab on 10/26/24, 11:49 PM
That screenshot of Foundem absolutely screams spam. Was it really something you'd want in your search results?
by valleyjo on 10/26/24, 11:35 PM
The whole google shopping case is ridiculous. If you are “big enough” and you change (aka make improvements to) your products you get fined. Foundem could have built a direct relationship with customers but that’s not the direction they went.
by burakemir on 10/26/24, 11:50 PM