Another Loss for Google as EU fine $4billion

over 1 year ago

A great setback indeed once a firm experience what is not what serves as a shake to it's approaches to services rendered and mode of operations. It won't be otherwise to say it a very big depth has been left and owe a very good recompense of reward if the real deal is not being kept or ascertained. This case being the same scenario faced by a well known company with great reputation worldwide called GOOGLE.

Google (GOOGL) suffered one of its biggest setbacks on Wednesday when a top European court fined it 4.125 billion euros ($4.13 billion) for using its Android mobile operating system to thwart rivals, offering a precedent for other regulators to ratchet up pressure.The unit of US tech giant Alphabet had challenged an earlier ruling, but the decision was broadly upheld by the Europe’s second-highest court in Wednesday’s ruling and the fine was reduced only modestly from 4.34 billion euros ($4.34 billion)source

Attributing this to an offence tagged to be antitrust and in compliance with the necessitated rule guilding this, obvious by the other party of judgement is the fact that the above stated amount is quite on the high price as it is questionable as to extent of the crime knowing fully well that the gravity of a crime determines the punishment as believe to be the true fact.

Unfortunately,this not being out of place as google has been fined earlier before in time of quite an amount of 2.42 billion euros last year. Charging this to the court and equating the main bone of contention being that there is an illegal or unlawful restrictions of actions placed by Google to android users producers in relation to it's use in surfing the internet. This being the main issue that skyrocketed the disagreement and disapproval of the modes of operation of Google that necessitated the high charge.

Page Turnover of this Act

Normally during court dealings and before a decision is being strike upon, there is a think,rethink, analysis and sets of reactions and actions taken before a deal is been done. This being like a weighing balance as to determine the right approach to a problem solve and the equivalent penalty. Looking at this very decision taken by the law court, it must have been that the right convergence of action and a line in line view of Google modes of actions in search engines related to the technologies in use of its service has been viewed. This being in the sense of mobile phone manufacturing companies which is of different company names, attributing this to their respective usage and restrictions that has been experienced in different gadgets as a result of Google modes of actions. Only if this is been analyzed will a conclusion of what the action is all about be truly believed on unless otherwise.