Google faces antitrust probe in Japan for pushing search default | Hacker News Reader

Google faces antitrust probe in Japan for pushing search default

english.kyodonews.net

80 pointsanigbrowl17 comments

Japan is also trying to take a stab at Apple with app store anti trust stuff, but I wonder how these things will play out. Will they just pay some fine and continue to go about their day or will some big change happen, even just for the Japanese market?

I seriously doubt the Japanese government having any power when it comes to opening up the app/play store, or enforcing something of that scale. Europe has been whining a lot, but I don't think there's anything radical being done yet.

It's all but certain that the App store will be opened up to the degree the DMA demands, when it demands it.

The act will only fully come into force next year and until then nothing needs to be done (besides measures like reporting users to determine who is even affected).

I'm sure the Apple PR team is still debating whether they hide the changes in a font size 1 footnote or whether this will be a "bold decision taken by Apple".

And the jury is yet out how much malicious compliance, that will result in a second round of legislative action and some court cases, they will use.

But rest assured, something is going to happen.

The article mentions that Google "is suspected of making the device makers feature its search application and Google Chrome browser app by default and specifying where those apps should appear on the device screens in exchange for allowing them access to the "Google Play" app store"

Is there more information on this anywhere or are the requirements for Google Play certification confidential?

Some versions of the Mobile Apps Distribution Agreement (MADA) have found their way into being accessible through previous lawsuits.

The versions available are almost 10 years old now (e.g. https://www.vox.com/2014/5/3/11626422/a-look-at-googles-not-...), but more may become available in future given the increase in court cases like this.

I just dont see the deterrent here

I dont see any reason to ever have antitrust related legal counsel in advance

I get the idea of not doing anticompetitive things and hoping the market chooses you, but actually legally analyzing every possible market share increasing action for antitrust issues just doesnt seem worth it incomparison to fighting the regulator later

> but actually analyzing every possible market share increasing action doesnt seem worth it

That's sort of fundamental to how markets work. If you're not willing to do this, the government should not be willing to grant you license to operate.

> incomparison to just fighting the regulator later

Yea, don't worry about morality if it gets in the way of money. Laws don't apply if you have enough cash. The long term outcomes of allowing this to continue, I'm sure, will be great for everyone involved.

you are right, there should be prison punishments for the managerial class, otherwise its just an added cost of business

"Bob, we need you to take the fall for us and go to prison for 10 years. We'll look after your family meanwhile, and pay you handsomely for your time."

Plenty of other organisations (of various sorts) are ok with that. Theres no reason Google and similar wouldn't figure out something along the same lines.

Under the Sherman Act, the criminal penalty for conspiracy to monopolize is up to 10 years in prison or $10M for individuals, and up to $100M for a business, OR up to twice the monetary benefits to conspirators OR up to twice the money lost by victims, if those amounts are over $100M.

Wow, this is a very good news article. I miss when news online was so short and to the point. And what I miss even more is news articles covering both sides of the story. I would expect that The Register or similar sites would not have quoted "We have not confirmed any illegal activities at this point" with this headline.

I feel informed after reading this, not emotionally swayed in some direction.

Just look at this article about refugees - just facts, no opinions inserted - https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/10/2f5fe6c44464-refu.... Let's contrast this with a more Western approach to presenting an article about figures related to refugees - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/29/more-than-2500-dead....

Taking boiler-plate legalese at face-value isn't sustainable. It's just as bad for signal-to-noise ratio as autoplaying video ads.

"We have not confirmed any illegal activities at this point" with this headline." doesn't imply anything of substance at this stage of the process.

What would you want it to imply? This is simply a fact. I think it is a problem if a news outlet tries to imply something by selecting facts to paint a certain picture. This is the opposite of that. The facts that the outlet knows are the facts that it states.

It does, actually. It implies the process has just started, which is pretty substantive.

Given that the Japanese legal system is notorious for only proceeding with charges when the police/prosecutors feel they have an open and shut case (99.8% conviction rate, if I remember), I think they have more to go off of in this case than they’re revealing now. Admittedly this isn’t a normal criminal case, but I’d still expect to see a similar situation here.

I think that's more of a criminal case thing, while this is a civil matter.

It's pretty clear that Alphabet/Google needs to be broken up into at least four separate parts in order to prevent the current entity from illegally using dominance in some areas to grow their size in other areas:

1) Search and ads

2) Media (Youtube)

3) Cloud services

4) Mobile OS (Android)

Next: A certain fruit company.

The usual movie: Google pushes its monopoly with shenanigans, they get sued, and if they lose they pay a random fine that is a drop in the ocean. Nothing changes and shenanigans continue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com