From reading the article, this was not the of case working their way through the courts, which would indeed be very expensive, but via the Competition Commission, that would then be responsible for the costs of the investigation (if they were interested in investigating, which, according to the article, they were).

So I would think the biggest cost would be time and energy and that is enough to put the majority of people off. (One of the first things I heard from a lecturer as part of my law degree was: never, under any circumstances, go to court, unless you really, really have to, as it is not worth your time and energy.)

What a load of crap.

The EU anti-cartel unit regularly takes on big EU multi-nationals.

This is as silly as saying that the United States only acted against Volkswagen in the diesel scandal because they were not American.

It's not difficult for this American to imagine e.g. GM being treated quite differently had they committed the same offense. Granted, eventually they would have to stop cheating on emissions tests, but the narrative could have been completely different: "Due to its commitment to its customers and to the environment, GM is working closely with regulators to improve its emissions testing compliance, in light of new regulatory interpretations..."

> The EU commission just took it all for themselves

I've seen the EU in a club in Brussels blowing all the money that they took from Google and the British couple on booze and women.

Joking aside, I'm fascinated by the narrative by HN user on the EU.

It is true that there is reluctance to put pressure on your own industry. So we see that Microsoft, Google, etc. receive more pressure in EU, while Volkswagen receives more pressure in US.

However, the article points out perfectly well how Google uses their de-facto monopoly on Web search to stifle competition in other areas (such as specialized search services).

The couple can sue Google for damages as soon as its violation of anti-monopoly regulations has been established. They just need to wait until Googles appeal against the decision is rejected (which it most certainly will).

Is "I know that I'm going to get downvoted" the new opening argument? Forestalling criticism does usually work in discussions, but it should not be necessary here. If you get downvoted, so be it. You are not your HN karma. (I know I'm gonna be downvoted for this ;) )

>...it should not be necessary here

I think it's a lame figure of speech that's only used to paint yourself as some kind of underdog hero.

The top comment (!) in the "AMP for email is a terrible idea"-thread [0] is a post starting with this exact phrase. Obviously your idea wasn't so controversial after all, so just let the users decide the up-/down-votes.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234

In such cases, I like to assist in making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. I understand a degree of criticism forestalling, but when I read it, it distracts from the commenter’s point.

Is fear of being downvoted a new kind of self-censorship?

It's not new. The whole point of a downvoting facility is to encourage site users to conform their posts to what other users want to read. It isn't 100% effective, since users may decide that they'd rather post what they want, downvotes be damned. It probably isn't meant to be 100% effective. Users who do this all the time will get banned, but more occasional anti-censorship posters will broaden the scope of acceptable discourse, often in beneficial directions.

I immediately stop reading the comment and downvote whenever I see that phrase.

It's againt HN guidelines, but most people here don't care.

This is certainly a proper question to ask! Semi related but, I have some experience getting funding from the EU for innovative projects, the cost of work needed to acquire this funding was nearly to the point where it wasn't worth it for any small companies to even attempt. So I can understand that this level of justice is only to be achieved by the wealthy and resourceful parties.

Process before the european court of human rights is free of charge, but requires a lawyer (you really might want one). There is however also the european court of justice; again, not to be confused with the europea justice court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Righ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_Euro...

has your family received "compensation"?

IANAL, in fact I lost a case before the local court just trying to receive support for legal aid, but at least I could object to paying the opponent lawyer an illusory sum.

> There is however also the european court of justice; again, not to be confused with the europea[n] justice court.

I really hope those names are more distinct in French or German something. Otherwise, they really need to work to make them less confusing.

Were the fees mostly made up of the lawyers fees? It would be possible to do it without the lawyers, but it's a long shot, or better would be to find people with a similar case to band together to take on such a case. It's usually because of a conflict between the EU regs and the implementation of said regs in the member state, this could be a conflict that also exists in other member states so it may be possible to find a group of interested parties from various parts of the EU.

I always thought the foundem case was backed by Microsoft? Maybe I'm mis-remembering but I'm sure I read that somewhere?

in the article maybe?

"By now the couple had been joined by numerous other complainants, including Expedia, TripAdvisor and Microsoft"

Busted.

It's also even in the second paragraph: 'being the first plaintiff, the others being Yelp, etc...'

The article's title is extreme clickbait. This couple didn't "take on" Google, or even this case. A European commission took on the case, representing the interests of many corporations.

Which country is that? Do you have a ballpark on the cost, in your case? Genuinely curious.