> If they operate a quasi-monopoly those laws are stricter than they would be for you and me.
To have stricter laws, there should be an actual monopoly. Google have no monopoly, only a "mental monopoly", so called mind-share. When people want to search for something, the first word that pops into their head is "Google".
A monopoly is something else, like not being able to buy a product or service except form a particular vendor, even if you want alternatives.
Also, a monopoly uses its power to prevent entry into the market: vendors who want access to the users who would like alternative vendors are hindered from starting up.
You're not paying anything for Google searches, and there are alternatives.
Google connected a farm of machines to the network, which provide a free service and don't prevent anyone from doing the same. How can that be a monopoly?
That’s how the ISP market in most EU countries is still competitive: The largest ISP has to rent their lines to competitors at normal market price. They can not refuse.
There is certain type of content that you would agree that Google shouldn't be allowed to put on their website. It's just that in the EU there are some more restrictions.