
Google fined in India for search bias - Santosh83
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/google-fined-in-india-for-search-bias-207314
======
tpaschalis
One important part for people that might not have read the article is the
percentage-of-revenue nature of the fine, something that is also being used in
the EU "for breaking EU Competition Law". (I don't know how cases like these
are handled in the US).

I think that such policies are more likely to make giant corporations think
twice about abusing their market position. > "The penalty was calculated at
the rate of 5 per cent of the average total revenue that Google [...] years of
2013, 2014 and 2015."

~~~
sundarurfriend
Yeah, I too like that aspect of the fine.

And while the particular amount is tiny considering the whole of Google, it is
apparently 5% of what Google earned in those years from its "Indian
operations" \- and that revenue drop and profit/loss implications will matter
in internal decisions, and will be significant when the profitability of this
arm of operations is considered internally. And that will in turn have direct
and indirect implications for internal management and decision-making. Nothing
dramatic of course, given they can still get away with a lot, but this is not
a trivial fine or ruling like many seem to be assuming.

------
ipsum2
It's very absurd that Google is being fined for what it puts on its own
website.

> The DG also recorded that Google was not required to pay any monetary
> consideration for its house ads which gave it an additional competitive
> edge.

Yes, it doesn't make sense to give money to yourself.

> Google shows two types of commercial units in India: shopping units which
> display ads for product offers of merchants; and flight units which identify
> flight offers for a given destination.

It shows ads to make money to pay for costs.

> Third, the search intermediation agreements prevented publishers from using
> search services of competing search engines.

I have no idea what this means. Any ideas?

~~~
gtirloni
*> Yes, it doesn't make sense to give money to yourself.

At Google's size, there are extra accounting processes that you should follow.

You might be looking at Google like a single giant thing while in fact it's a
complex arrangement of companies and departments underneath.

~~~
mcny
> At Google's size, there are extra accounting processes that you should
> follow.

I've always assumed when I see an ad for Google Chrome in the sponsored
section in Google web search that it is money coming out of Google Chrome's
marketing budget. So, it should technically count as revenue for Google web
search.

Which is why I think corporate taxes on profit is silly. Taxes should be based
on revenue, not on profit. That you choose to reinvest all of your profits
back into the company should be immaterial. If a corporation has 1% of its
revenue as profit vs another corporation has 25% of revenue as profit is not
our problem.

~~~
IanCal
> Taxes should be based on revenue, not on profit.

This means that every layer in a series of transactions to the customer would
add costs. Great for the biggest companies who can do everything in house,
terrible for smaller companies acting in a chain.

A massive company who buys raw materials and produces everything in house and
sells for £1000 would pay tax on revenue of £1000 per widget.

A series of small companies may have:

Refinery: revenue £100

Part production: revenue £200

Construction: revenue £300

Wholesaler: revenue £400

Brick and mortar store: revenue £500

Now the massive company pays tax on £1000 but this series of companies pays
tax on £1500.

~~~
mijamo
Now I wonder if we could fix that by taxing only the difference.

And we could call it Value Added Tax!

~~~
mcny
Hm... I am reading the replies and yet again I've grossly oversimplified the
problem in my head :(

------
dukes_haven
That's basically like 2 cents for Google, I don't think that they are going to
change biasing search results any time soon

~~~
malikNF
Yes its pocket money for google, but also it said the following

>>The commission ordered Google not to impose restrictive clauses with
immediate effect in these agreements.

plus, I am guessing this will encourage more people/companies to pursue legal
action against google if they don't do anything about this.

------
outside1234
A whole $21M? I am sure they are making changes immediately.

------
venganesh
if risk << reward { attack; } Seems like Google would continue to attack
startup ecosystem in India.

