EU accuses Meta of abuse of power in Marketplace, threatens billions in fines – IT Pro – News

The demand for legislation relates to Article 102 of the European Union, which protects the internal market from abuses of domination.

TL; DR: Not every act of power is an abuse, although it may feel that way to some panelists.

Short article: “It is incompatible with the internal market and prohibited, in so far as trade between member states may be affected, if one or more enterprises exploit a dominant position in the internal market or a large part of it.” Some follow Examples.

The commission says that this is how Facebook gets Marketplace users, and that it destroys others. This is just a normal competition. If someone wins because of a trump card, like big publicity money, they can. Even having a distribution network and being able to offer the best is fair competition. In fact, the competition won’t be integrated into Facebook, and the browser plugin is probably illegal because it disrupts Facebook (and I think copyright protects the integrity of the site).

“One-sided meta imposing unfair trading conditions” – it can be. The market is reasonably “low life” to talk about good conditions. People who cancel bids and the like can be very wrong. However, the committee is concerned with “data about ads derived from competitors for Facebook Marketplace”, so having competition advertise on Marketplace can then predict somewhat random results (similar to how a normal person would have no idea who they are). n facebook marketplace soon). “Such terms impose a burden on competitors and only benefit the Facebook market.”

I really don’t understand the second point, if I’m being honest. Competitors are not required, nor forced to, to agree to Facebook’s terms and offers. The committee also did not say how it linked Article 102 to complex and/or difficult-to-translate “terms and conditions” negatively. If I understand correctly, Facebook detects my interests in advertising topics, while advertisers only see their own ads, and then uses this data on Marketplace to possibly fulfill the detected need. Then this is not fair. However, profiling the customer and not sharing that data is the norm today.

Article 102 should be mainly understood, I think, as a company refusing to supply enough special hammers to a country in the European Union, making certain products too expensive in certain countries, or even adding unnecessary conditions for the delivery of a product (you get tons of concrete, If you build that many too? or “If you also buy that many bikes”).

So the link is in “Other Unfair Contractual Terms”, as given in the examples. In any case, the context is to protect free trade within the European Union. Cross-border trading takes place via the Marketplace, of course, and there are terms and conditions that are perhaps unnecessarily pro-meta. In my opinion, the case for “normal market practices” Meta is making is completely broken here. Access and activity on the Facebook platform are also likely to be separate in this sense, and are not exclusively linked to international transactions made through Marketplace.

The product encourages widespread trade, and does so without challenging a homogeneous market. This makes the citation of Article 102 inappropriate. Facebook’s actions are not in the nature of facing fair competition, but (perhaps) using its powers to mine and process data, and to “turn pages”. There is no expectation of a “fair and equitable situation or consideration” in the market. If your Facebook ads hit the target as an experiment, rather than connecting with a potential customer (for example, Facebook misplaces your ads on purpose), you can even then anticipate that, and realize that you shouldn’t be advertising there.

The extra fee for “International Shipping” should be the “European Single Market” shipping, which will make a big difference in the second-hand market.

[Reactie gewijzigd door GamingZeUs op 20 december 2022 01:36]