
Challenges to Silicon Valley won’t just come from Brussels - robin_reala
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/01/google-fine-challenges-to-silicon-valley
======
TazeTSchnitzel
Competition law is one thing, but Data Protection is probably the thing EU
citizens can cherish most. It is light years ahead of many other
jurisdictions, including the US.

------
deepGem
"monopolistic behaviour is considered illegal if it restricts competitors."

I think there is a major fallacy in this reasoning. Case in point - look at
the trains in UK. Tracks, rails, signaling, services are all owned by
different companies. While this sounds great from a regulatory perspective,
it's not so great for bringing about changes. Which is perhaps why, most of
the trains still run on ancient signaling tech, no GPS trackers. I admit, I
have very cursory or superficial knowledge in this domain, but at the outset
this is what it seems like. OTOH, the FCC's way of looking at monopolistic
behavior seems prudent - it's just based on price. As long as consumers get
the price advantage, a monopoly is fine.

------
plandis
If the EU can simply decide that agreed upon tax deals are no longer valid
seems like nothing more than a shake down of an American company.

Also, it's somewhat terrifying because what laws will Brussels decide to
suddenly interpret different on a whim?

The US Treasury has a good analysis of why this is a sham ruling:
[https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-
policy/treaties...](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-
policy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-State-Aid.pdf)

~~~
tormeh
1\. No, they can't "simply decide". That's not how the legal system works.

2\. The case argued was that the tax deal was illegal when it was agreed upon
and therefore void. Sweetheart deals / government aid is generally illegal in
the EU, and neither Google nor Ireland should have been surprised.

3\. Do you have any examples of the ECJ changing interpretation on a whim? I
do see that Google lacks legal certainty, but when you're as unique as Google
is, lack of precedent comes with the territory. That said, Google is walking
up to the red line of its own volition. There's a limit to how surprised they
can credibly act when they find they have overstepped it.

~~~
wav-part
> _2\. The case argued was that the tax deal was illegal when it was agreed
> upon and therefore void. Sweetheart deals / government aid is generally
> illegal in the EU, and neither Google nor Ireland should have been
> surprised._

You are right about Sweetheart deals. But the dispute is whether the "deal" is
sweetheart deal or not. Ireland DoF, Apple (not Google) and US Treasury argues
that Apple was following the same laws as everyone else. But EC says
otherwise.

Note that EC have repeatdley shown their discontent regarding Ireland's,
otherwise EUAA consistent, tax laws. One might argue that its an attempt to
harmonize tax laws across EU despite it not being a requirement under EUAA.

> _3\. Do you have any examples of the ECJ changing interpretation on a whim?
> I do see that Google lacks legal certainty, but when you 're as unique as
> Google is, lack of precedent comes with the territory. That said, Google is
> walking up to the red line of its own volition. There's a limit to how
> surprised they can credibly act when they find they have overstepped it._

Its not ECJ its EC. EC has acted retroactively (Apple case). EC has acted
without precedent and warning (Google case).

