[flexie]

Before anyone makes the argument that the EU should have no jurisdiction over an American entity, please remember that Google sells its services in Europe. It's well within the jurisdiction of the EU to regulate how anyone does business here. Google Ireland alone had a 50B euro turnover.

The breaking up of monopolies used to be in the toolbox of American antitrust policies, back when America enforced antitrust legislation on its own companies.

[panragon]

>Google Ireland alone had a 50B euro turnover.

Not to discredit the rest of what you're saying, because it is true the EU has jurisdiction and that anti-trust is a lost art in many places in the world. Still, saying Google Ireland 'alone' is a bit funny when Google (like all multinationals) is known to take advantage of Ireland's tax laws to funnel as much of their EU business through.

Whatever money Google is making in Ireland isn't just what they're making from the Irish market, it's also from whatever they're making everywhere else in the EU who's origins are ambiguous enough to not be attached to any single country.

[madeofpalk]

You can't have it both ways though. You don't get to take advantage of Irish law to reduce your tax/costs, but then also say that Ireland (and the EU) has no jurisdiction over you.

[thfuran]

But that's not the claim being made.

[throwaway462910]

It's the claim being pre-emptively argued against though

[panragon]

This is completely false, I stated very clearly that they have jurisidiction regardless and that anti-trust is fine. I was just pointing out that it's pretty unfair to use the size of Google Ireland as if it's "just another EU country" when it accounts for basically all EU-based revenue.

€50bln is still a huge amount, but based on the phrasing of that comment you'd assume we were talking about figures well over €1t!

[thfuran]

The comment they replied to already explicitly stated that the EU has jurisdiction. They're not pre-empting anything.

[bbor]

Not sure there’s anyone in here arguing for google. Poor little google, being bullied by all us hackers…

[sensanaty]

You should check out the thread, lots of people throwing themselves in front of the firing line because I guess they think that messing with Google will somehow translate to messing with their own startups or whatever.

[heywhatupboys]

well, that still means they have to follow Irish law. Just like shipping companies register their ships in other countries, that means they have to follow their laws too.

[Detrytus]

yes, but that's not the point of GP comment. Saying "Ireland alone has $50B turnover" might make someone think: "Wow, if they make so much money from such a small country, then how much do they make in the entire Europe?". And the answer to that is: $50B. There's not a single euro-cent is earned in Europe that does not go through Ireland.

[Detrytus]

Yep, and that's how you get Ireland's GDP per capita artificially inflated to $114k, when in reality it should be maybe a third of that...

[bee_rider]

Eh, we can’t really complain. The international capitalist system owes Ireland a bit more; its predecessor, colonialism, screwed Ireland over for generations.

[Detrytus]

But the point is that Ireland does not really benefit from this money - it is only an accounting trick. Google funnels money through Ireland, but does not employ many people in Ireland, and does not pay much taxes there. In the end, the living standard of typical Irishman is closer to countries with $40-45k GDP, such as Italy or France, than to countries with $100k GDP, such as Norway or Switzerland.

[inamorty]

This is not true. If anything Ireland is too reliant on a few multi-national corporations. In 2022, corporate tax was the second highest income stream for the state: https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/4992b-exchequer-surplus-...

[resolutebat]

This article suggests Google employed over 8,000 people in Ireland in 2018, and it's quite likely that number has grown since.

https://9to5google.com/2020/03/02/google-dublin-coronavirus/

[Detrytus]

Which means one employee per $6 millions of revenue. Which is exactly what I’m talking about: their actual presence in Ireland is much smaller than you would expect from revenue number alone, which again supports my claim about “accounting trick”

[toast0]

Because big companies are funneling money through Ireland, they usually need some corporate presence there. Because they already have a small office there, and there's a large English speaking population, when they want a bigger office in Europe, Ireland is a likely choice.

If they weren't already in the country for accounting purposes, they might choose different locations for offices.

[spacebanana7]

There are real questions about how much authority the EU has over an American entity. Can the EU only regulate activities in the EU or does it have global jurisdiction?

On one hand, if Google simply restructured, spun off or sold its EU ad business the competitive landscape wouldn't change that much. I'm not sure whether a new European competitor could ever become a peer to Google if it could only compete in the EU market because of the network effects in the ad business.

Alternatively, the EU having global jurisdiction would have even bigger issue. With that precedent, could Japan or Australia regulate European businesses? Also how would the EU enforce rules outside of its geography? How complaint would the US court system be in enforcing European decisions?

[piva00]

> Alternatively, the EU having global jurisdiction would have even bigger issue. With that precedent, could Japan or Australia regulate European businesses?

That's already what the USA does to global companies operating inside the US. That's exactly how Cuba has been under a blockade from the US, for example...

[spacebanana7]

Sanctions are different from antitrust.

With sanctions the US can declare that third parties must choose between doing business with the US and Cuba / ZTE. Because of it's large economy the US would be confident that most of those parties would choose to choose the US over the company / small country.

Antitrust enforcement is many ways more difficult than sanctions enforcement because third parties must be compelled in 'how' rather than 'whether' they do business with a company.

Even the US would've struggled to break up ZTE / Huawei etc into smaller companies across every jurisdiction for antitrust. Doing so in China would've obviously been impossible but even enforcing this in the Gulf States & South Korea would've stretched the limits of US power.

[sangnoir]

When it comes down to it - it's the same thing with the EU - they can decree that Google be broken apart or stop doing business in the union. Or pay a massive fine based on global profit or exit the union.

[spacebanana7]

The goal of antitrust is to make markets more competitive.

If Google left the EU entirely there’d be even fewer competitors in the digital ads space. Depending on the segment Google’s market share would likely go to Bing, Facebook or TikTok.

The EU wants to increase the market competition, but frustratingly antitrust enforcement may not be effective and might even go in the opposite direction.

[piva00]

If Google left the ads market in the EU there'd be a massive gap to be filled by multiple companies, competition would have a field day filling it.

I don't follow your argument.

[callalex]

>If Google left the EU entirely there’d be even fewer competitors in the digital ads space.

This may be true in the very short term, but leaving a big hole in the market like that creates an opportunity for new players that would have otherwise avoided the space because it was controlled by a monopoly.

[boycott-israel]

holy shit are you 12 or just slow?

[Longhanks]

What makes you think the EU would have the slightest jurisdiction at all over any entity outside of its member states?

The only reason they speak about Google is because Google does business in the EU.

[toast0]

GDPR aside, the EU doesn't generally assert global jurisdiction. If Google does what they want for EU only, that should be fine with EU anti-trust. Microsoft typically only markets anti-trust compliant products in the relevant jurisdictions; no browser ballot or missing media player in the US.

Of course, if Google only makes the change in the EU, it doesn't much change the landscape outside of the EU. Although there's a chance for better competition in the EU to give another player a foothold, which then helps them gain usage elsewhere (perhaps from global customers who like the results in Europe and try it globally)

[WastingMyTime89]

> The breaking up of monopolies used to be in the toolbox of American antitrust policies, back when America enforced antitrust legislation on its own companies.

The US Justice Department sued Google in 2020 and is asking for pretty much the same disinvestment for pretty much the same reasons. The EU is trailing the US by two years here.

I'm eagerly awaiting the trove of patriotic comments which will undoubtedly follow the posting of such an article and will most likely entirely miss the point as usual.

[Gareth321]

> The US Justice Department sued Google in 2020 and is asking for pretty much the same disinvestment for pretty much the same reasons.

While true, 2.5 years later there is still no action. In that same time period, the E.U. released the largest anti-monopoly technology law in its history, the Digital Markets Act. This will take effect near the end of the year and impact all major tech companies. I think it's clear that U.S. antitrust is ineffective at present.

[bbor]

They’re advancing in spurts - a few events this year. Remember when the justice department suggested that google sell its buy side advertising unit, and somehow “what if we just spun it off into its own Bet?” got proposed. Good times. Perhaps the most brazen “FU” from google lawyers in the history of the company

[pwb25]

and american government agencies try to rule over all countries or citizens all the time too. Or try to make them follow their anti piracy laws

[LatteLazy]

A better argument is simply that the US routinely (and selectively) enforces its rules well beyond its borders. So why shouldn't anyone else with the clout needed...

[pwb25]

Can't wait for the chinese or indian SEC to start suing US nationals for different exotic financial wrongdoings on some half hidden rule

[dtech]

You've slipped down quite the slope to go from antitrust of companies operating in the jurisdiction to foreign natural persons.

[pwb25]

Not really. When did the Chinese CFTC do something like this to any american?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash#Evidence_of_m...

[LatteLazy]

Just for balance, the US had Canada arrest a chinese national who had never been to the USA, for doing business with Iran (and then a bunch of other weird charges)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou

China then "co-incidentally" arrested 2 Canadians.

The whole thing is a shit show and it would be better for everyone if countries were more reasonable and agreed to avoid a "race to the bottom"

[pwb25]

yes, but they were already there right? Not targeted out of country

and also just to be clear, I think this is equally bad when everyone does it

[LatteLazy]

It is a bad approach, but it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma: no nation will be the only one NOT to pull BS like that...

[golemotron]

I'll applaud the first large US company that leaves the EU market entirely and makes a claim of non-jurisdiction. It's overdue. In fact, I don't think they have to go that far. Other countries are free to block internet services or sanction their own citizens for using them.

It should not follow that placing a service on the web makes you subject to the jurisdiction of anyone who chooses to use it.

[bantunes]

Why should it not? If you're providing a service (presumably for profit), shouldn't you be bound by rules other commercial service providers have to follow in that jurisdiction as well? If not, you'd be at a massive advantage.

[golemotron]

It's not being provided in that jurisdiction. If you are hosted/domiciled in a country foreign users are entering another jurisdiction when they access the service.

[bantunes]

If you're taking money in that jurisdiction, why is it not "being provided"?

[golemotron]

Another way to look at it is that customer is sending money to another jurisdiction.

Countries can and do pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with. It seems like that is a better route than inventing jurisdiction over foreign companies.

[bantunes]

Again, if you "pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with" isn't that having jurisdiction over a foreign company?

[1over137]

>back when America enforced antitrust legislation on its own companies

A great book about that era is "Goliath" by Matt Stoller.

[Mountain_Skies]

I used to believe that company breakups should happen automatically when they reach 1% of the country's GDP. There are lots of ways companies could avoid having the government decide how to break them up such as issuing dividends instead of hording cash, spinning off non-core businesses, setting up independent IP companies that would license back IP to the core company (and as an indpendent company, be required to license to anyone else at similar rates), and things like that. The problem comes in if one country follows this paradigm but then you have a company like Samsung that's over 20% of their host country's GDP and there's no appetite in the host country to break them up. How can your domestic companies that are limited in size compete with those of other countries with no limit on their size?

[zmgsabst]

I think what we’re seeing with “too big to fail” is that it also means “too big to succeed”.

Personally, I suspect that the 20 companies each at 1% GDP will out perform the 20% company in most or even all markets. (Setting aside the issue of relative GDP between nations.)

Often, the bazaar is more effective than the cathedral.

[gylterud]

How about an automatic nationalisation in stead? Where you take companies which have grown too big out of the private ownership’s hands.

[kakapo88]

Changing the ownership does not address the problem, which is market concentration. You're still left with a company with too much power. That aside, look at the historical data. Nationalization has generally been disastrous and leads to all sorts of other pathologies.

[baridbelmedar]

What precisely would that solve in this case?

Previous attempts to nationalize companies have not, as far as I know, been a shining success?

[toyg]

This is Hacker News, you can't say the N word here.

[delfinom]

Too dangerous unless it's a service that should be a vital government service.

You do not want your government to basically have a permanent monopoly on everything. This just gives power to authoritarian to rise.

[hef19898]

Democracy allows authrotarians to rise in and of itself. Recent ones include Orban, Erdogan and Trump. Historical ones include, yes I know, Mussolini and Hitler.

[pb7]

Nationalization is corporate civil asset forfeiture.

[cool_dude85]

This is just a lazy attempt to tie one thing to another, unpopular thing. What is the comparison here aside from "I don't like both"? In what sense is nationalization "corporate civil asset forfeiture"?

Not all nationalization is uncompensated, even in the real world. Further, you can imagine very fair ways, long term, to nationalize companies by e.g. requiring them to pay a wealth tax in the form of equity.

[pb7]

> nationalization: the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control

> civil asset forfeiture: enables a government to seize property and other assets belonging to persons suspected of committing a crime

The suggestion being that being wildly successful should be a crime.

[bbor]

Won’t someone think of the poor corporations D;

[justinclift]

Or maybe do the the China model, where the board of directors gets some mandatory appointed board members...? ;)

Only 1/2 /s there...

[donatj]

> breaking up of monopolies

What’s the monopoly here? There are tons of successful ad companies.

[shadowgovt]

You've hit the nail on the head regarding the difference between the EU concept of antitrust and the American one.

EU antitrust law is grounded in harm to companies. If there are many companies, but one has sewn up the market so strongly that others can't really have a chance to prosper, the EU will step in.

American antitrust law is grounded in harm to consumers. The US regulators won't go after a successful ad company because other ad companies say it's too hard to compete with them; it'll go after them if consumers say "We don't have any choice but to do business with X, and X's prices are too high / X is too exclusive / X is only doing business with us in market sector A if we agree to use them also for market sector B."

That additional bar to regulation means the EU may very well have cause to act before the US does if Google is big enough to muscle around other ad agencies and set the terms by which they can exist, even if they do exist.

[bbor]

I recommend you look into it a bit more if you haven’t - there are buyside and sell side competitors, but google massively controls both markets, which it uses to grow both businesses.

For example, the justice department found slides from a project that favored its buyside customers when running supposedly impartial auctions on the sell side - in layman’s terms, brazenly fucking over their competitors. Allegedly.

The best part is of course that the google engineers named it “project bernanke” after the Fed chairman, since they thought of it like QE, I.e. “giving out free money” to people who used their buyside products. I’m still not sure if that was a criticism of QE or if they’re honestly that submerged in the Google Kool-Aid…

All of that is small potatoes to the main way in which google is a monopoly though: they run the only ad exchange. Trust me, it helps. Facebook spent many billions trying to stand up a competitor and ultimately gave up, which should tell you how valuable that privilege is

[xps]

Please name one credible Google Ads competitor.

[knowriju]

Err... Meta / Microsoft /Yahoo ? Also depending on how you look at it, you can buy ads to showcase your business in Amazon, Apple as well.

[fredgrott]

equally good and bad as the fractured tax policies of Europe is what allows Gogle to avoid US corporation taxation.

[roomey]

I think it is fairer to say US tax law allows Google to avoid US corporation tax no?