Do they wire it in parts from their presumably multiple accounts in various banks? Which entity do they send it to? Does the fine allow paying it in installments? How does it pass AML clearance?
And what happens should they theoretically fail to pay? Does law enforcement show up at their door? Does a collection agency handle it?
Again idk about this particular court, but also in Poland (and I expect most EU countries) they're also allowed to pay at the counter with a "legal tender" (cash and some limited legal papers like promissiory note), that is, they're free to dump truckload of coins at the main entrance, should they procure such an amount.
Over here people do it sometimes to vent themselves if they loose a case. Typically police will get called, but it's the cashier's job description to count the money, and they can't require extra payment for that, so in extreme cases the office gets locked for a whole day.
Probably not. I suspect that most countries allow creditors to refuse payment in large quantities of coins or notes. Certainly the UK does.
Court-assigned fines to the government generally get collected by the internal revenue service, not a collection agency; but the standard means if they do not comply does not involve law enforcement showing up at their door but the starting point is letters to all the banks to seize any current and incoming funds, if that is not sufficient, followed by seizure and auction of any real assets (e.g. buildings) - but since the described amount is roughly what Google earns from EU in a single month, simply seizing that sales revenue would be enough.
They pay more or lose access to billions in sales. It's both as complicated and as simple as that.
2019 EU's budget was 148m EUR.
Budget overall is used for a mix of growth (e.g. building bridges or other infracstructure), security (border patrol), regional help (e.g. after wildfires). They do a lot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...
See eg. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-0169/overview-9/ind...
Military spending and the maintenance of armed is still an exclusive competence of member states and will likely remain so even as there's more integration of rapid intervention and peacekeeping HQs within the EU.
Total defence spending across the entire EU is around €200 billion.
The €148 billion does include a security and defence budget of around €44 billion a year, most of which goes to a joint R&D fund (European Defence Fund), the European Peace Facility, and agencies like Europol and Frontex.
The EU can suck it.
Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe?
I mean, sure, there is a common sense level of decency in dealing with regulators and not making them madder than need be, but take a look at the United States. A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.
I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.
There's always a bigger fish in the pond. The regulators themselves can play this game given Europes historical economic position, but when tech companies deemed important to US national security and honestly scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels, you can bet a stern response from the US will be taken seriously.
Yes? Regulators are there to stop companies abusing their powers.
> A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.
Legally challenging a regulator within the system is not "fucking with the regulators". We're already talking about an appeal, and there may be another level of appeals to this. It's not a regulator running wild.
> I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.
It feels weird that you think an appropriate response to a company fined for breaking the rules and being anti-competitive is political threats and sanctions.
> scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels
I'm not really sure that google forcibly stopping manufacturers from making phones with non-google-approved android installed is key scientific progress.
The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power.
Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution.
An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice.
The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking.
As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.
Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild.
The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries.
> The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets.
Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share.
> Individuals on the committee
The regulator and the court involved in the appeal?
> As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large
And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial.
Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion.
Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
From my original comment : “ the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. ” in other words, speaking about the European entities including the commission, unelected bureaucrats running agencies as well as the history of successive CJEU rulings usurping the authority of the legislative branch to deem international agreements invalid for exceedingly silly reasons when said legislature undertook successive acts guaranteeing the flow of data between the EU and the US.
If you’re not well informed about the situation in the EU and are winging your argument based on our exchange alone with no appetite or curiosity to educate yourself, it’s pathetic and you can fuck right off.
>Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
Have you worked in the phone industry? Set foot in a single physical phone store that’s not an Apple Store for more than a tourist visit? Do you know the kind of bait and switch that’s out there for these exact agreements to be formalized into legal documents?
The history of abuse, scams, deliberate overzealous marketing leading to shitty consumer experiences through fragmentation is what those documents address. You know this as well as anyone out there.
You can’t just run a phone company that sells the new A1.5573 Play store model(limited stock, ie 100s only manufactured during a lifetime) while selling the A1.5573e non play store model and confuse your customers by having all your marketing showing the play store phone with the play store apps with the device ID in fine print at the bottom of a 40x40 billboard.
Read the fucking conclusions of the court at least before making stupid statements like “competition on merits, hurr durr”. The court found the commission in violation of preserving the defence the right to be heard by denying them access to evidence and repeatedly so. They actually upheld googles appeal on this count and found the revenue share agreements that underlie the play store install issue to be non abusive.
Again. Fucking read. God gave you the fucking sense to do so and you’re not cattle.
But the EU must accept Euros. They're not required to accept newly invented American currency or American change. The only reason that the USD isn't bitcoin is because the US government is required to accept it for taxes, and any debt or fine decided by US courts is considered settled if it is paid in US dollars e.g. you can't demand that someone who killed your goats pay off the court judgement in goats.
In such case melting them for scrap would bring even more money! I doubt that Google would manage to get enough pennies.
> And lobby the US government for a special issue penny that carries a 99% tax when used.
They would need to pay in Euro.
Who decides what is legal tender in the EU?
The parent comment was a joke it it wasn't clear. A call for malicious compliance given the abject subjectivity of the ruling here. It also illustrates how the pettiness displayed by European entities acting hostile towards western tech companies while ignoring alarming abuses by Chinese companies is silly and dangerous.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and all that, extend this petty exchange that the rulers of the EU at present seem hell bent on, and we lose so much as a society for negative gain.
What about the pettiness of making shit up when you get caught cheating?
Europe is a democracy following the rule of law. The laws are public and everyone can know whether they comply or not. If US companies can't bother to conduct business legally, then they deserve the fines.
If I was an US citizen, I would be more concerned about how the Silicon valley became a hotbed of fraudulent activity [1][2][3] and the impact it will end up having on promising new tech, companies and employees.
[1]: https://www.adweek.com/media/concern-over-google-ad-auction/
[2]: https://www.axios.com/2022/01/18/google-facebook-conspired-m...
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/uber-ex-security-chief-accu...
Before dragging your ass into making another silly point thats not being debated here, could you please read the thread and understand the law that Google apparently violated here and what part of the court ruling is black or white and not subjectively parsed to the point of hilarity ?
And once you're done with that, go educate yourself on what the difference between a democracy and reality is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_...