Uh, that's actually the point of the ruling: Google was intentionally subverting competition by giving their own shopping links the priority within a general search.
1. Google never promised that their searches will be "fair". 2. Access to a search engine is not a human right.
You think that the American dream is real and that customers have a choice. I think you are naive, that the American dream has been shown to be a lie, that the US are a big scam, that consumers only have the illusion of a choice and that big companies prey on their consumers.
It is indeed a matter of perspective. But saying something does not automatically make it real. In other words, the fact that you CAN HAVE an opinion, does not make that opinion valid/reasonable/fact.
Free market is not a scam, and it does work in the US. Whether you like that or not, is another topic.
"that consumers only have the illusion of a choice". So, when I choose to use Google or Bing or another engine, it is just an illusion? When I choose to buy a Lexus vs Ford, it is just an illusion of choice even if I do have that choice? That makes no sense, because when I make that choice, it is real. When you say, there is no choice, that is only in your head.....
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
monopoly on what? On search? What does it even mean? It is a f-g product that you CHOSE to use. You don't die, if you choose not to use Google.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Nonsense. This decision is precisely defending European consumers. Nothing elite about it. Quit defending megacorporations instead of actual consumers.
And the US should defend US companies from unfair EU fines. We need to curbstomp the EU and maybe they will stop targeting US companies with these excessive fines. It's a blatant money grab.
Brussels wants us to not protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping because it might hurt them (this after imposing their own 73% tariffs on Chinese steel) and threatens us with "retaliation" if we do but hits US companies with huge fines based on worldwide earnings at the same time. Fuck them. Hit Europe as hard as possible with steel tariffs but let UK steel in. Frankly if the EU want to sell us anything they can go through the UK. That'll make them understand not to be total douches during Brexit.
Let them try their "nuclear option".
Right... Unfair, you do know they fine their own company just as much hey bud.
Stating some baseless claims doesn't make it true.
No, they don't "fine their own company just as much" which is why they call it a "record-breaking fine" as opposed to "the usual wrist-slap fine".
"Apple ordered to pay a record-breaking €13bn". "Google hit with a record €2.4 billion fine". "EU issues a record $1.45B fine to Intel".
So yes, stating some baseless claim doesn't make it true. The EU hits US companies with huge record breaking fines that aren't levied on EU companies.
One is a god damn tax thing, it's as much a snub on Ireland as apple and apple will likely never pay, so get a clue and stop lying. The fine is proportional to the size of the company, if the company is a smaller company with a non monopolistic position, they get hit less. How the hell is that hard to understand. btw, considering the us just levied 2 billion in tarifs annuallly on much smaller Canadian lumber companies as a protectionist measure without proof even (a 10 times higher levy), your whole spiel is laughable.
This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies. Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment.
Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once.
You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly.
Isn't it the case that Google achieved that 80%+ through hard work? So, what is wrong with them using their tools to their advantage? What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair. And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.
Read up on monopolies and then comment. I don't want to have to deal with that level of ignorance.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
The American elites continue to think that the American law is applicable all over the world and that their view on anticompetitive behaviour is by definition the correct one.
As long as European "leaders" expect us to pick up the tab for their own defense, they could at least not bite the hand that feeds their government extravagence for everything under the socialist sun -- except the most basic government responsibility: defense.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results.
This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.
Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.
This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.
Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.
Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).
It seems to be a pattern with Google.
Yes, in the case of Android, the Anti-trust case is even stronger. They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it. That's the same double speak they did with search. A supposedly fair (or open source (sic)) becomes highly unfair and opaque. That Samsung has not sued YET is just a miracle; I suspect they might soon.
I fail to see how Android would be a strong anti trust case. What could Samsung actually sue Google for? It's not like Samsung or any other phone manufacture is being forced to use Android on their phones. No one is stopping Samsung from using Tizen on more phones.
You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly.
Isn't it the case that Google achieved that 80%+ through hard work? So, what is wrong with them using their tools to their advantage? What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair. And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.
Read up on monopolies and then comment. I don't want to have to deal with that level of ignorance.
Exactly, buddy! Read up on that. Google does not have a monopoly on search engines, by definition. They only happened to have a good one through a lot of work. So, what was your point? What was that about ignorance?
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
The American elites continue to think that the American law is applicable all over the world and that their view on anticompetitive behaviour is by definition the correct one.
Europe's view of competition: wait for American companies to carry the lead in innovation, and then cry and whine about "unfairness" and use legal maneuvers to entitle the lagging companies to be treated "fairly." The decay and rot of socialist thinking.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Nonsense. This decision is precisely defending European consumers. Nothing elite about it. Quit defending megacorporations instead of actual consumers.
And the US should defend US companies from unfair EU fines. We need to curbstomp the EU and maybe they will stop targeting US companies with these excessive fines. It's a blatant money grab.
Brussels wants us to not protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping because it might hurt them (this after imposing their own 73% tariffs on Chinese steel) and threatens us with "retaliation" if we do but hits US companies with huge fines based on worldwide earnings at the same time. Fuck them. Hit Europe as hard as possible with steel tariffs but let UK steel in. Frankly if the EU want to sell us anything they can go through the UK. That'll make them understand not to be total douches during Brexit.
Let them try their "nuclear option".
Right... Unfair, you do know they fine their own company just as much hey bud.
Stating some baseless claims doesn't make it true.
No, they don't "fine their own company just as much" which is why they call it a "record-breaking fine" as opposed to "the usual wrist-slap fine".
"Apple ordered to pay a record-breaking €13bn". "Google hit with a record €2.4 billion fine". "EU issues a record $1.45B fine to Intel".
So yes, stating some baseless claim doesn't make it true. The EU hits US companies with huge record breaking fines that aren't levied on EU companies.
The EU doesn't distinguish between EU and Non-EU when it comes to calculating fines. The fine calculation guidelines are publicly available. There is some leeway that can be applied but again, there is no special treatment for EU companies.
The biggest fines so far have largely been for US companies because proportionally, their revenues are higher and possibly, US companies might feel that their size allows them to get away with what is considered to be 'abuse' by the EU. That is speculation on my part. Microsoft was one such clear example, though.
One thing crystal clear. Everyone knows the rules and potential consequences before getting into these situations. If someone complains, there will be an investigation. Very often a lengthy investigation where all the parties involved are informed of the process and participate actively in it and with the people within the EU at high levels.
In the case of the EU, The Irish Government and Apple, Tim Cook has visited both the EU offices dealing with the case and Ireland to hear first hand the stance of the EU.
Although people may claim they didn't see things coming and/or show surprise at EU fines, more often than not they were fully informed of the situation and possible consequences, far in advance of any final decision making the headlines.
This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies. Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment. In the end that is exactly what it is.
By the way iagree with Google, links to other search sites just waste my time. The last thing we need is crappy service from Google because the EU can't compete.
Small correction: Google was found to be dominant in their field, not a monopoly. There is a difference in the two besides just the spelling.
Europeans and socialists in general do not get the distinction. If you succeeded, it must be because you cheated, or your uncle controls a contract with the central government. Socialist thinking. If your product is better, well, you should share and we can all be equal. And then there is just the general "shakedown" approach of all socialist societies. "We need the money. We can take it by force." Can't do that do non-nationals, except now you can, through EU legal mechanisms.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results.
This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.
Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.
This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.
Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.
Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).
It seems to be a pattern with Google.
They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly. Promoting their own products and services above those of a competitor is an abuse of that market. That gives a freer and more equal market than otherwise.
In fact, it is You who could not be more wrong. "Freer" and "more equal" are essentially contradictory in the marketplace. The freedom to succeed, or fail, is dependent largely on individual or organizational abilities and desire to exceed and outperform the practices of all others, not equality. The power of the consumer to choose ultimately picks the winner, not socialist interventions toward equality. This is the fundamental piece of free markets that European decisionmakers are missing.
The European 'elite'? What the fuck does that mean?
The unelected European Commission which makes all your laws and over whom you have absolutely no say whatsoever. Surely you’re not so dense that you don’t know about them, right?
Governments elected by people make laws
Not your government. Unelected officials (the elite) make your laws. You have no say in it. You are a totalitarian oligarchy.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Free market = predatory capitaism with help from lawmakers who in turn fund their campaigns for re-election.
The free market requires legal boundaries to ensure a level playing field -- not targeted protectionist interventions predicated on the belief that a successful company should be punished for making life difficult for non successful ones.
Nice to see a system that favors the people and not corporations.
A favor? It is about as much of a favor as Chavez did to his people.
In a truly free society, consumers decide who serves the people and they do so with their choices on where to spend their currency. Not an interventionist government that treats the endorsement of consumers as a crime.
I didn't read the article, because it would probably just annoy me. But, did they mention that Google pesters you to download Chrome every time you visit them? How that is not an illegal abuse of monopoly power I will never understand. It's textbook.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, not if you got that monopoly by just being good at what you do and getting lots of customers. That's Google Search in a nutshell. But to use your monopoly in one area (search) to leverage an unfair advantage in another area (browsers) is an abuse of the monopoly.
I'm not sure how that works with Apple and the iPhone's influence over Maps, iTunes, SIRI, etc. But, maybe it's not a problem because of the existence of Android with a large percentage market share? If iPhone had like 95% market share, surely there would be a problem with those practices.
The European 'elite'? What the fuck does that mean?
The unelected European Commission which makes all your laws and over whom you have absolutely no say whatsoever. Surely you’re not so dense that you don’t know about them, right?
This is incorrect.
The commission can draft, monitor and enforce laws but it cannot actually pass any.
It is therefore impossible for the commission to even impose a law on any member state and to that end, the rest of the EU.
The EU, by definition of its makeup is a very bureaucratic place and there are complexities but you are incorrect with your statement.
Comments
2. Access to a search engine is not a human right.
In other words, the fact that you CAN HAVE an opinion, does not make that opinion valid/reasonable/fact.
Free market is not a scam, and it does work in the US. Whether you like that or not, is another topic.
"that consumers only have the illusion of a choice". So, when I choose to use Google or Bing or another engine, it is just an illusion? When I choose to buy a Lexus vs Ford, it is just an illusion of choice even if I do have that choice? That makes no sense, because when I make that choice, it is real. When you say, there is no choice, that is only in your head.....
btw, considering the us just levied 2 billion in tarifs annuallly on much smaller Canadian lumber companies as a protectionist measure without proof even (a 10 times higher levy), your whole spiel is laughable.
The biggest fines so far have largely been for US companies because proportionally, their revenues are higher and possibly, US companies might feel that their size allows them to get away with what is considered to be 'abuse' by the EU. That is speculation on my part. Microsoft was one such clear example, though.
One thing crystal clear. Everyone knows the rules and potential consequences before getting into these situations. If someone complains, there will be an investigation. Very often a lengthy investigation where all the parties involved are informed of the process and participate actively in it and with the people within the EU at high levels.
In the case of the EU, The Irish Government and Apple, Tim Cook has visited both the EU offices dealing with the case and Ireland to hear first hand the stance of the EU.
Although people may claim they didn't see things coming and/or show surprise at EU fines, more often than not they were fully informed of the situation and possible consequences, far in advance of any final decision making the headlines.
Europeans and socialists in general do not get the distinction. If you succeeded, it must be because you cheated, or your uncle controls a contract with the central government. Socialist thinking. If your product is better, well, you should share and we can all be equal. And then there is just the general "shakedown" approach of all socialist societies. "We need the money. We can take it by force." Can't do that do non-nationals, except now you can, through EU legal mechanisms.
Not your government. Unelected officials (the elite) make your laws. You have no say in it. You are a totalitarian oligarchy.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, not if you got that monopoly by just being good at what you do and getting lots of customers. That's Google Search in a nutshell. But to use your monopoly in one area (search) to leverage an unfair advantage in another area (browsers) is an abuse of the monopoly.
I'm not sure how that works with Apple and the iPhone's influence over Maps, iTunes, SIRI, etc. But, maybe it's not a problem because of the existence of Android with a large percentage market share? If iPhone had like 95% market share, surely there would be a problem with those practices.
The commission can draft, monitor and enforce laws but it cannot actually pass any.
It is therefore impossible for the commission to even impose a law on any member state and to that end, the rest of the EU.
The EU, by definition of its makeup is a very bureaucratic place and there are complexities but you are incorrect with your statement.