“You are at fault that I am famished,”
He said — and dragged the Lamb into the woods.
Perhaps not always. But it happens.
A Brief Tale of How Google and Idealo Fell Out
Let us begin, however, with a different kind of story.
News broke recently that Google will pay Idealo approximately €465 million for years of pressuring competitors. An enormous sum. According to Idealo’s representatives, Google promoted its own services while artificially downgrading competitors in search rankings. The Berlin Regional Court found that the company had abused its dominant position in the search market.
This was no ordinary lawsuit. Media conflicts these days do not always involve big money. But this appears to be precisely such a case.
Google has apparently become quite adept at promoting its own services — at least that is its reputation in Europe. The company has long been in the European Commission's crosshairs for antitrust violations. As far back as 2017, the regulator levied a substantial fine over its practice of featuring a proprietary shopping service block in search results — effectively crowding competitors out of view.
More recently, the European Commission slapped the company with a separate fine of nearly €3 billion — a sum almost beyond comprehension. The reason: distorting competition in the advertising technology market. In the regulators' view, Google controls the infrastructure connecting advertisers with websites and exploits this leverage for its own benefit.
And therein lies the rub. The arbiter concluded that the company promotes advertising content it has a stake in.
It is worth noting, however, that Idealo is no small fry either. Not some destitute Cinderella or poor relation. It is one of Germany’s largest price-comparison services.
Its owner is the Axel Springer media group. This means the company's financial resources are vast and its legal support in this litigation was top-tier. The best lawyers, unlimited funds.
Little wonder, then, that after this initial victory, Idealo appears set to press on with further litigation. Idealo has emphasized that the awarded sum falls far short of actual losses. The company originally demanded €3.5 billion for the period from 2008 to 2023, and may file a separate claim for 2024 and 2025.
According to Idealo co-founder Albrecht von Sonntag, the company has no intention of stopping here. He maintains that the impact of Google's actions far exceeds the compensation amount.
The stakes, as we see, run into the billions. Two giants of the information sphere have locked horns. “Cruel are the mores in our town, sir, cruel indeed!” — as a character in another Russian classic, Alexander Ostrovsky's play «The Storm,» once remarked.
Both have much to lose. But neither will lose everything. This is merely an exchange of vicious bites without fatal consequences. Their resources and capabilities are, for all practical purposes, limitless.
The ordinary observer may find it entertaining to watch them scheme and spar, but surely understands: this is no fight to the death.
Predators and Humanists
The situation changes, however, when a media giant of this caliber targets a local news outlet with its full force. Legal grounds cannot mask the glaring disparity in resources and power.
As it happens, dear reader, this is precisely our situation in dealings with the very same Axel Springer media group.
Our media project Aussiedlerbote serves the German-speaking Russian community and aims to help migrants integrate in Germany. In terms of scale and financial resources, it cannot remotely compare — as you surely understand — with Axel Springer or Google.
Yet over the past two years, our company has faced a challenge all too common for small businesses: a major media conglomerate brought claims against us over publications that allegedly infringed its exclusive rights.
Instead of direct dialogue and an attempt to resolve the matter amicably, we were met immediately with legal pressure — letters from lawyers, demands for compensation, and court proceedings.
For a small company, such tactics become a trial by fire: the resources to mount a defense are scarce, while corporate demands tend to be grossly out of proportion. Yet we weathered round after round of litigation — gathering evidence, filing objections, and making our case. In the end, we incurred expenses that a large conglomerate would scarcely notice, yet which weigh heavily on a small business.
The episode lays bare a stark imbalance: corporate giants can unleash formidable legal arsenals, while smaller entrepreneurs must sacrifice time and resources to mount a defense — resources that might otherwise fuel their growth.
One more famous quotation comes to mind in closing. Apt or not? Here is how things stood in the 19th century. In his “Capital”, German philosopher Karl Marx quoted English publicist T.J. Dunning:
“Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated.”
We imply nothing. Readers may judge for themselves. In our age, where does the relentless pursuit of profit ultimately lead? Perhaps toward philanthropy? Or perhaps in quite a different direction — toward strife, wars, and everything commonly called the crisis of European humanism.
But let us draw a line here.
This experience has been a lesson for us. We have learned how vital it is to know your rights, document every step, engage fearlessly in legal dialogue, and keep working despite the pressure.
We would like to believe that situations like these ultimately strengthen small companies. They make them more resilient when facing the sharks of capitalism.
