EU: The Google Fine: Report: Google to appeal $2.7 billion EU fine

Google Fined by EU for abuse of market position in shopping searches

According to The Telegraph, Google is planning to file an appeal against the roughly $2.7 billion (€2.4 billion) antitrust fine imposed by the European Commission in June for abuse of market position in shopping search. The fine was the largest in EU history; the previous record fine was $1.3 billion against Intel.

Last week, Intel won a rare partial victory against EU antitrust regulators when the European Court of Justice instructed a lower court to re-examine its decision and take a closer look at the underlying facts and market impact of Intel’s behavior.

It’s not clear whether last week’s decision impacted Google’s thinking on whether or not to appeal (Google’s decision was likely made before last week). Though it will likely be in process for several years, an appeal makes sense because the company faces potential similar fines and demands for change around other types of “vertical search” results such as maps/local, travel and other categories.

Google is required to submit proposals for changes in its search results to bring them into compliance with EU rules. Google reportedly submitted its plan last month. It will be compelled to make those changes and live within them during the appeal process.

Read more: Report: Google to appeal $2.7 billion EU fine

EU Commission: clears major agro-chemical merger between Dow Chemical and Dupont worrying environmentalists - and raising lots of other questions

Global polluters blessed by the EU Commission

The European Commission approved on Monday (27 March) the proposed $130 billion merger of Dow Chemical and Du Pont. But the decision triggered a strong reaction from environmentalists, who believe that such mergers lead to “major monopolies”.

Dow Chemical and DuPont, two of the oldest US companies, announced their tie-up in December 2015 to create the world’s biggest chemicals and materials group.

“Due to significant commitments on products and the worldwide research and development organization, the merger of Dow and Dupont can be approved,” EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said.

The European Commission had been concerned that the merger of two of the biggest and oldest US chemical producers would have few incentives to produce new herbicides and pesticides in the future.

By approving this merger, however, it will not escape some that this approval shows once again the servitude of the EU Commission to US business interests. Even to those who are among the major global polluters and environmentally abusive corporations.

EU-Digest
 

Corruption in the European Union: Scandals in Banking, Fraud and Secretive TTIP Negotiations - by Graham Vanbergen

In Brussels alone there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, which are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies and DigitalEurope, whose members include all the big IT names like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft are there. So are the Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby working for BMW, Ford, Renault and others, the Chemical Industry Council lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like, are all there.

The European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies are present as are powerful big Pharma companies and FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever are sitting at the negotiating table.

One in every 5 corporate lobby groups, which have lobbied for trade on TTIP (80 out of 372 corporate actors), is not registered in the EU’s Transparency Register. Of 597 closed meetings the EU Commissioners conducted over TTIP, 88% were with big corporations. Just 9% were with public interest groups.

Many, if not most of these corporations are not strangers to scandals of corruption in one sort or another. TTIP if successful, would perhaps be the apex of their achievement.

Transparency International explains the connection between lobbying and corruption thus:

    Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favour of a specific cause or outcome. Even when allowed by law, these acts can become distortive if disproportionate levels of influence exist — by companies, associations, organisations and individuals.

 It should be clear to anyone that when transparency of policy making, basic safeguards and accountability are limited, this can lead to illegal, undue and unfair influence in a country’s policies and politics. TTIP is the embodiment of a corrupt system where corporations decide what are best, not democratic principles.

In the meantime, Cecelia Malmstrom has faced huge public opposition over TTIP. Millions have signed petitions. Mass protests groups have rallied in many cities across Europe and America, some have turned ugly with protestors facing riot police in Brussels and elsewhere. In response the EU Commission conducted the largest ever survey since its 1951 birth and reluctantly published the results in January 2015 where 97% of 150,000 respondents from 28 nations voiced their unequivocal opposition to the deal. At the same time, the Commission also received individual replies from more than 450 organisations who represented a wider spectrum of EU civil society, including trade unions, NGOs, business organisations, consumer groups, charities, legal firms and academics, all of whom expressed either deep concern or outright opposition – to no avail. (5)

Questioned by a reporter from The Independent on why she continued her persistent promotion of the deal against such massive public opposition, Malmström’s chilling response was: “I do not take my mandate from the European people.” EU commissioners are supposed to follow the elected governments of Europe and so this deal proves it is nothing more than a corporate coups d’état that clearly breaches any definition, no matter how low the bar, of corruption. (6)

This stark reality is highlighted by a report from War on Want who revealed that The European Commissioner for Trade receives orders directly from the corporate lobbyists that swarm around Brussels.

    Given that the European Commission takes its steer from industry lobbies it’s hardly surprising that 70 per cent of Europe’s population think corruption is now centered on politics and corporations.

Read moreCorruption in the European Union: Scandals in Banking, Fraud and Secretive TTIP Negotiations | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

What happens in Europe, doesn't stay in Europe: US giants accused of breaking EU privacy pact - by Jennifer Baker

More than 30 big US tech firms are breaking international agreed-upon US-EU Safe Harbor commitments to safeguard Europeans’ data, according to a complaint filed with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Thursday.

The Washington-based Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) claims tech giants such as AOL, Adobe, Salesforce, Datalogix, Marketo, BlueKai, Criteo, Merkle and others are ignoring their promise to keep EU citizens’ data private – as opposed to sharing it with other organizations.

None of these companies have responded to requests for comment, but we'll update when we hear more. The CDD claims "these companies are compiling, using, and sharing EU consumers’ personal information without their awareness and meaningful consent, in violation the Safe Harbor framework."

The Safe Harbor agreement is a legally enforceable but voluntary "code of conduct" for US businesses that process European citizens’ data. The bilateral deal was reached in 2000 and is supposed to guarantee Europeans data privacy in line with the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive, but following the Snowden revelations last year, many don’t believe it is worth the paper it’s printed on.

The deal let the US off the hook of having to comply with data privacy adequacy requirements for transferring data outside the EU and instead allowed companies to sign up to the agreement on a case-by-case basis. Currently 4,767 companies have so far signed up.

These companies are then authorised to display a logo showing that they are part of the scheme and the rules can be legally enforced. But last year Galexia, an Australian-based consulting company on internet law and privacy, carried out research into the Safe Harbor membership scheme and claimed it had found that around one in every seven claims is false.

According to the CDD, the 30-odd companies in the complaint are actively involved in “data profiling”.
“Our investigation found that many of the companies are involved with a web of powerful multiple data broker partners who, unknown to the EU public, pool their data on them so they can be profiled and targeted online," said CDD executive director, Jeff Chester.

The group has also claimed that the FTC is failing to enforce the Safe Harbor rules. Compiling, using and sharing EU consumers' personal information without their awareness, consent, or ability to opt out is in violation the Safe Harbor framework. In such cases the FTC could enforce sanctions.

Representatives of the EU and US are currently in negotiations to create a new, so-called data privacy “umbrella agreement” which would – possibly – give Europeans the same rights of redress as American citizens if their data is used inappropriately.

In the meantime, many in the European Parliament have called for the Safe Harbor agreement to be suspended. Following an investigation into the NSA spying revelations last year, the parliament voted to suspend the deal, but the European Commission, which would have to act on such a vote, has not done so, preferring instead to continue the “umbrella” negotiations.

Note EU-Digest: If the EU Commissions is able to override the EU Parliament on issues of Personal Privacy etc. there is something horribly wrong with the application of Democratic rule in the EU. In case the so-called "umbrella" rule ever gets implemented without proper review by the EU and national parliaments European citizens will find their personal rights even more curtailed than they are now. The EU Commission and the EU parliament better get their act together.

Read more: What happens in Europe, doesn't stay in Europe: US giants accused of breaking EU privacy pact • The Register

Privacy Laws - The EU could seize 25% of Google’s profits if it violates your privacy - by Leo Mirani

 Last year, Google made $50 billion in global revenue, of which $10.7 billion was profit. If the European Union’s draft bill on data protection becomes law, the company will have to pay a fine of up to 5% of worldwide annual turnover—$2.5 billion in 2012, representing nearly 25% of its profits—if it doesn’t comply. This evening, a European Parliament committee pushed the legislation one crucial step closer to becoming law.

The data protection regulation, as it is known, is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation to come out of the European Commission this term. It is fraught with political and economic meaning. The law (pdf) sets out wide-ranging new rules for how personal data is treated within Europe. Among other things, it tightens rules on how companies can collect and process data. It also makes it easier for users of an online service to move between networks or to request wholesale deletion of their data (otherwise known as the “right to be forgotten”). And it lays out punitive fines (pdf) for companies that break the rules, for example by collecting an individual’s data without consent or refusing to delete it.  

The law’s effects will be felt far outside the European Union. Europe’s position is that any company that does business within its boundaries will be subject to its rules, never mind the ease with which data flows across borders or the difficulties national governments face in pinning down where exactly a company conducts its business. The Europe-wide law will replace the data protection directive of 1995, which set guidelines that the EU’s member states applied to their own jurisdictions. That meant a patchwork of disparate laws across the continent, with countries with looser laws—notably, Ireland—becoming hubs for non-EU companies.

+

Whether as a block or individually, Europe has for years been suspicious of the power wielded by American companies. France doesn’t like the economic clout they enjoy. Germany has a strong dislike for the easy data rules enacted by some EU members. And nobody really believes that the “safe harbor” agreement between the US and the EU to safeguard Europeans’ data is working. Moreover, Viviane Reding, the bureaucrat responsible for the legislation, is said to harbor ambitions to become the next president of the European Commission. Pushing through this law before her terms expires next year would represent a significant victory.

The US and its tech companies are not particularly happy about the new legislation and have been lobbying against it. European countries with softer laws have also been less keen to support the bill. And some claim the law could pose a risk to free-trade talks between the two blocs. 

Note EU-Digest: One can only hope for EU politicians not to chicken out and that they will adopt strong and effective legislation against what seems to be total disregard by the US of EU privacy laws, and that legislators will not get bamboozled by sweet talking lobbyists. 

Read more: The EU could seize 25% of Google’s profits if it violates your privacy - Quartz