this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
2654 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59314 readers
4948 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PrairieRanger@lemmy.world 209 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I wonder how long it'll be before google gets sued for their anti-competitive behavior.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 114 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Oh I imagine the papers are being filed as we speak, because this is blatantly illegal.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 36 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Well you typically need standing in order to file a lawsuit, who would do it? Mozilla are probably the only ones. Why would this cause them to do it when past similar practices haven’t?

[–] Dulusa@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

Europe will step in as usual

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 42 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps YouTube premium subscribers would have standing as a class action, since Google is materially worsening the experience of a paid product if you don’t use their browser

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I personally don’t think an argument like that would hold up. A company making its service worse in itself isn’t going to win court cases, and this is hardly the worst example of a tech company making its products worse unless you use more of their software.

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 6 points 11 months ago

Perhaps not, but it’s not just the act of making the service worse, it’s doing so measurably to paying customers ONLY when using a competitors product. With those caveats, I think you could at least argue standing. Winning is a whole other battle.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Microsoft, Mozilla org, maybe apple

EFF or government

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

On what standing though? Mozilla potentially has standing, and if the government finds that google is a monopoly, then the government could have standing, but nobody else.

[–] snazzles@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

How would Mozilla finance a court case against google though?

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

Users affected by it, Mozilla, any other company that comes to support Mozilla, watchdog groups like the EFF...

It can also be brought by attorneys general and governmental regulators, the FCC and FTC might have a bit to say about it...

Antitrust suits aren't civil cases, I don't think, so "having standing" is a bit different

I'm not a lawyer though so I could be way off base, but the antitrust cases I've been aware of I don't think they were brought by companies but by government agencies

[–] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Isn't Mozilla a non profit? I don't they can sue for anything along the lines of hurting profits to the company.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago

Can't you sue for loss of income regardless?

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

They do have a for-profit subsidiary that potentially could though

[–] TurdMongler@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Google funds then I'm pretty sure..

[–] skippedtoc@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Of course they can. If the word profit is confusing you replace it with returns or finances.

[–] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

What law are they breaking? Not trying to defend Google or anything, just curious what law is blatantly being broken here because I don't know of one

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's an anti competition law, they cannot penalize you for using a competitor service. This would be like getting fined by McDonald's because I went to Taco Bell.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

see FTC anticompetitive-practices

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago

Blatantly anticompetitive behavior where you (ab)use your dominance in one sector (i.e. YouTube) to choke out competition in another (i.e. make it slow on competing browsers) is illegal in the US and the EU, at the very least. I don't know the specific laws or acts in play, but that's the sort of thing that triggers antitrust lawsuits

[–] nfsu2 25 points 11 months ago

It is being currently being sued by Epic Games for Anti-Trust behavior. Google offered millions of dollars to Epic so that Fortnite would be available in the Play Store and not in Epic's own store.

[–] erranto@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

Been there, done that, and came on top.

[–] Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

They are already in one anti-trust trial for search engine shenanigans.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Cost of doing business

[–] Cannacheques@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

Trying to convince people to use your product by crippling other people's stuff really needs to stop. Did they not do an analysis on the issue of diminishing returns?