this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
2632 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

60078 readers
3337 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PrairieRanger@lemmy.world 209 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 114 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

Europe will step in as usual

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 42 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Microsoft, Mozilla org, maybe apple

EFF or government

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

How would Mozilla finance a court case against google though?

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year 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 1 year 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.

Can't you sue for loss of income regardless?

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] skippedtoc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] TurdMongler@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Google funds then I'm pretty sure..

[–] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago

see FTC anticompetitive-practices

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year 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@feddit.cl 24 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

Been there, done that, and came on top.

[–] Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Cost of doing business

[–] Cannacheques@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year 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?