Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ, or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true.
> Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ
You're of course making the assumption the ECJ isn't biased towards ruling in favor of the EU in these disputes...
> or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true.
Isn't there a formal "pay up or else" demand attached? If Google doesn't pay, then what? I would take this a lot more seriously if the EU said "look, these violations are so egregious we simply can't trust you to operate in the EU anymore." No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first.
Do you mean they were asked in 2018 to comply, but not fined until they refused? I only see things like https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-alphabet-inc-antitrust... where they were fined in 2018 for anti-competitive practices going back to 2011, and since then changed behavior while trying to appeal.
The fine is not a one-and-done like fines are levied against corporations in the USA, most fines against corporations in the EU can be levied many times if the infringing behaviour is not corrected.
Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ, or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true.