Google has stopped accepting political ads in Singapore months before a widely expected election. Reuters reports: In email correspondence between the Singapore Democratic Party and a senior Google public policy official, the tech firm said it "will not accept advertising regulated by the Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements." The new code of practice, part of a controversial 'fake news' law introduced in October, requires advertising intermediaries to maintain detailed records of political adverts and their sponsors and make those records available to authorities. The code applies to "all advertisement or paid content that can reasonably be regarded as being directed towards a political end." SDP said the "shocking policy" would deprive voters of information ahead of that ballot. "In an election with the media totally dominated by the state, alternative parties would have no ability to educate and inform the voters of Singapore in the run up to the elections if we are not able to use Google's advertising platforms in the first place," Paul Tambyah, chairman of SDP, said in the correspondence.

European officials have launched a "preliminary" investigation into Facebook and Google in order to determine how people's information is used for ad purposes. The Mercury News reports: The European Commission, which oversees antitrust issues for the European Unions, said it has opened a preliminary investigation into Facebook and Google in order to determine if the two companies are adhering to new regulations meant to give individuals more power over how their personal information is used by social networks and other tech companies. That law, called General Data Protection Law (GDPR), went into effect across the European Union in 2018. "The Commission has sent out questionnaires as part of our preliminary investigations into Google's and Facebook's data practices," said an EC spokesperson in a statement given to this news organization. "These investigations concern the way data is gathered processed used and monetized, including for advertising purposes. The preliminary investigations are ongoing." A Google spokesperson said in a statement, "We use data to make our services more useful and to show relevant advertising, and we give people the controls to manage, delete or transfer their data. We will continue to engage with the Commission and others on this important discussion for our industry."

Facebook didn't comment on the matter.

Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: In Apple's 2019 holiday ad The Surprise (YouTube, 11.8M views), the reveal at the end is that two young girls thought to have been frittering away time on their iPads have been making an unforgettable, heartwarming tribute to their recently passed grandmother that brings tears to their grandpa's eyes. "This is a master class in comfy reassurance commercialism," writes Fast Company's Jeff Beer. "It's something we see all the time in advertising, where a product of convenience pitches itself as a problem-solver, simultaneously making you feel less guilty for needing it. Better meals. A cool, organized house. A clean house. Screen time. The emotional journey from haggard travel to family loss to inspirational kids, all set to the soundtrack from perhaps the most tear-inducing scene Pixar ever made? It's a sentimental super weapon."

And in Microsoft's holiday spot Lucy & the Reindeer (YouTube, 66K views), 6-year-old Lucy marches outside and uses her Mom's Surface and Microsoft Translator to question Santa's reindeer ("How do you guys fly? What does Santa do in the summer?") after seeing how Microsoft's Cloud solution enabled her Mom to close a big deal with her Japanese clients without having to understand a word of their language.

So, do the Apple and Microsoft holiday ads appeal to your sentimental or cynical side?

Amazon says it will shut down a program that sends shoppers free samples based on what it thinks they want to buy. From a report: The program, which Amazon began testing earlier this year, used machine-learning tools to discern shoppers' buying habits, then sent them free product samples curated to their tastes. Samples included items such as Maybelline mascara, Calvin Klein perfume and Kind bars, among other things. While Amazon likened it to the site's product recommendation tools, the program raised privacy concerns among some consumers who have grown increasingly wary of data mining and targeted advertising across the web. Now, Amazon says it is winding down the program. "Amazon is constantly testing and launching new offerings to innovate on behalf of customers," an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC. "At this time, we have decided to discontinue the sampling program in 2020."

Speaking of YouTube ads, the Google-owned company is rolling out a new ad format for its TV experience, dubbed Masthead, to all users. The company tested this new ad format with some users earlier this year. From a report: Announced in a brief post, YouTube says that its beta test of this new ad format was successful in select markets leading to the now global rollout of the Masthead ad format. The new format is available to all advertisers on a CPM basis as part of a cross-screen advertising campaign on YouTube. YouTube's Masthead ad format is not subtle by any means, appearing over the entire top portion of the TV app. Further, that ad auto-plays silently and expands to full-size when the user hovers over the ad. Advertisers, such as FOX, call this "first of its kind" initiative a "fantastic way" to promote its content. The TV network has been using the YouTube Masthead to promote its hit show The Masked Singer.

A lawsuit filed in federal court claims that Burger King is falsely advertising that its "Impossible Whopper" is "100% Whopper, 0% beef." "[Phillip Williams, the plaintiff in the Florida lawsuit] says he is a vegan who purchased an Impossible Whopper because of that zero percent promise, only to learn later that the patty was cooked on the same broiler as regular meat burgers, and thus was actually 'coated in meat by-products.'" Stephen L. Carter writes in a Bloomberg column that courts used to be skeptical of cases like this, "but times may be changing." From the report: Now, I'm as quick as anybody to condemn frivolous litigation, but if the allegations are true, Williams might well have a case. Vibrant free markets rely on truthful advertising, at least when the advertising influences the purchase decision. If a consumer happens to be vegetarian or vegan (or even, like me, pesce-pollotarian), the claim that the Impossible Whopper contains no meat will be crucial to the choice whether to give the sandwich a try. Not long ago, courts turned skeptical eyes to arguments by vegans that they'd been snookered. Back in 2003, for instance, a California judge dismissed a lawsuit by a "strict ethical vegan" against the maker of a tuberculosis test that, according to the plaintiff, was said to be vegan-friendly but actually contained animal products. The plaintiff lost not because the claim was ridiculous, but because, according to the court, the class of "strict ethical vegans" was too small. A reasonably prudent seller, wrote the court, possessed "no duty to warn of the possibility of rare, idiosyncratic, hypersensitive, or unusual reactions to an otherwise safe and useful product."

The court's reasoning is dated, the product of an era when veganism seemed quirky. No longer. According to a 2018 Gallup survey, some 3 percent of U.S. adults say they are vegan. Using current census data, this works out to around 7.6 million vegans. One doubts therefore that a present-day court would so blithely conclude that the class of those likely to be influenced by a claim of vegan content is small, or that its preferences are idiosyncratic. And, indeed, recent results have trended the other way.

Puffery -- "a mere puff," as the courts used to say -- is an extravagant advertising claim made in a context where no reasonable consumer would take it to be a factual assertion. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and absurdity are often puffery's ingredients. (Think "service second to none" or "best-built car on the planet.") Had Burger King advertised its Impossible Whopper as containing "so little meat a vegan won't care," a court would certainly have deemed the claim puffery. But the statement that the sandwich contains "0% beef" isn't puffery; it's a clear and precise assertion about the existence of a fact. If it was foreseeable that the claim would encourage those who eat no meat to try the product, and if the claim turns out to be false, it should be actionable. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the claim is actually false. As Impossible Foods has pointed out, the customer can ask Burger King to microwave the burger, thus avoiding any contamination with meat products. This proposition, if it turns out to have been properly advertised, might well allow the restaurant to avoid liability altogether. And let's not forget that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the lawsuit is potentially important.

Microsoft's Edge browser is built on the same open source code as Google Chrome. But Ed Bott, writing for ZDNet, noticed something interesting: On January 15, 2020, Microsoft is scheduled to roll out a completely revamped Edge browser to the general public. That browser, which is available for beta testing now on all supported versions of Windows and MacOS, includes a feature called Tracking Prevention. If that name sounds familiar, you're not imagining things. Microsoft added a Tracking Protection feature to Internet Explorer 9, back in 2011; it used simple text files called Tracking Protection Lists (TPLs) to allow or block third-party requests from specific domains. That's the same general principle behind Tracking Prevention in the new Edge, but the implementation is more usable and more sophisticated, with multiple Trust Protection Lists taking the place of a single TPL.

I've spent the past week looking closely at this feature... [A]lthough it's aimed at the online advertising and tracking industries in general, my tests suggest that its effects are likely to be felt most directly by one company: Google.

Using the default Balanced setting, Tracking Prevention blocked a total of 2,318 trackers, or an average of 35 on each page. Of that total, 552 were from Google domains. That's a mind-boggling 23.8% of the total. To put that into perspective, the second entry on the list of blocked trackers was Facebook, which represented 3.8% of the total.
Rather than an anti-Google conspiracy, the article suggests this is instead just a reflection of both Google's ubiquity and its business model.

"Google Analytics and Google AdSense are embedded on a staggering number of web pages."

An anonymous reader quotes Business Insider: Slack tweeted a video on Thursday comparing a Slack ad and a Microsoft ad, showing the similarities between them and implying the Microsoft ad copied Slack's concept. The video was captioned "ok boomer," a phrase that has turned into a meme for millennials and Gen Z to voice their gripes with the baby boomer generation... Slack is leaning into its status as the young, hip startup by calling out its older, more established competition: Microsoft...

On Tuesday, Microsoft announced that Teams hit 20 million daily users, while Slack most recently announced just 12 million users. Slack's stock took a dive after the announcement. Although it has fewer users, Slack points to its user engagement, saying that users enjoy using the app. Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield said that Microsoft sees the company as an "existential threat."
The Verge notes that "a lot of businesses will opt for Teams simply because it's bundled as part of Office 365."

And ZDNet reports that a partner at one of Slack's early investors even tweeted an image showing Google Trends' top five rising queries for Microsoft Teams. #1 is "how to stop Microsoft teams," and also include "how to turn off Microsoft teams," "how to get rid of Microsoft teams", and "Microsoft teams keeps reinstalling."

Google said on Wednesday that it will stop giving advertisers the ability to target election ads using data such as public voter records and general political affiliations. Reuters reports: Google said on Wednesday it would start limiting audience targeting for election ads to age, gender and general location at a postal code level. Previously, verified political advertisers could also target ads using data such as whether the users were left-leaning, right-leaning or independent. Google said political advertisers can still do contextual targeting, such as serving ads to people reading a certain story or watching a particular video.

The company will begin enforcing the new approach in the United Kingdom within a week, ahead of the country's general election on Dec. 12. It said it would begin enforcing it in the European Union by the end of the year and in the rest of the world starting on Jan. 6, 2020. "Given recent concerns and debates about political advertising, and the importance of shared trust in the democratic process, we want to improve voters' confidence in the political ads they may see on our ad platforms," Scott Spencer, vice president of product management for Google Ads, said in the blog post. Google added examples to its misrepresentation policy to show that it would not allow false claims about election results or the eligibility of political candidates. Google also added examples to its ad policies to clarify that it prohibits doctored and manipulated media.

Scott Stein, reviews Google Stadia cloud gaming service for CNET: Stadia's launch day was earlier this week... sort of. Really, consider this the start of Stadia's early-access beta period. Because Google's big promises haven't arrived, and at the price of the Stadia's Founder's Edition, I can't recommend anyone jump onboard at the moment. Google's experimental game streaming service, Stadia, launches without many of its promised features, and just a handful of games. It works, but there's not much incentive to buy in. We've heard about the promises of streaming games over the internet for a decade. Stadia really does work as a way to stream games. I've only played a couple of the 12 games Google promised by Tuesday's launch, though. That short list pales compared to what Microsoft already has on tap for its in-beta game-streaming service, xCloud. It's no match for what Nvidia's game streaming GeForce Now already has or what PlayStation Now offers. Prices of Stadia games at launch in the US are below. They're basically full retail game prices. This could get crazy expensive fast.

[...] Stadia has so few games right now, and I'm trying them with no one else online. It isn't clear how things will work now that the service is going live, and what other features will kick in before year's end. I'm curious, but I might lose interest. Others might, too. I have plenty of other great games to play right now: on Apple Arcade, VR and consoles such as the Switch. Stadia isn't delivering new games yet, it's just trying to deliver a new way to play through streaming. One that you can already get from other providers. Until Google finds a way to loop in YouTube and develop truly unique competitive large-scale games, Stadia isn't worth your time yet. Yes, the future is possibly wild, and you can see hints of the streaming-only cloud-based playground Stadia wants to become. But we'll see what it shapes into over the next handful of months and check back in. Raymond Wong, writing for Input Mag looks at the amount of data playing a game on Stadia consumes and how the current state of things require a very fast internet connection to work: Like streaming video, streaming games is entirely dependent on your internet speed. Faster internet delivers smooth, lag-free visuals, and slower internet means seeing some glitches and dropped framerates. Google recommends a minimum of connection of 10Mbps for 1080p Full HD streaming at 30 fps with stereo sound and 35Mbps for 4K resolution streaming (in HDR if display is supported) at 60 fps with 5.1 surround sound. Reality didn't reflect Google's advertising, though. Despite having a Wi-Fi connection with 16-20Mbps downloads in a hotel room in LA, streaming Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Destiny 2 to my 13-inch MacBook Pro wasn't 100% stable. The visuals would glitch out for a second or two about every 10 minutes of playtime. [...] A fast internet connection isn't the only thing you need for Stadia to work right. You need a lot of bandwidth, too. One hour of playing Red Dead Redemption 2 at 1080p resolution on my 46-inch HDTV via a Chromecast Ultra ate up 5.3GB of data. This seemed insane until I saw an hour of Destiny 2 on a Pixel 3a XL with 6-inch, 1080p-resolution display gobbled up 9.3GB of data!

Juul Labs was sued by California for allegedly targeting teenagers with ads for its e-cigarettes, after a series of lawsuits filed by schools, parents and others against the market leader as deaths and illnesses linked to vaping add up across the U.S. From a report: "Juul adopted the tobacco industry's infamous playbook, employing advertisements that had no regard for public health and searching out vulnerable targets," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who announced the lawsuit at a news conference Monday in Los Angeles. "Today we take legal action against the deceptive practices that Juul and the e-cigarette industry employ to lure our kids into their vaping web." The San Francisco-based e-cigarette company has become a target of government regulators attempting to stem an epidemic of new nicotine users who have flocked to the sleek device even though many have never smoked cigarettes. Becerra alleges that Juul targeted young people in its advertising, failed to include required warnings, knowingly delivered tobacco products to consumers without verifying their age, kept the personal e-mails of minors who tried and failed to make a purchase, and proceeded to market Juul to them.

Few companies have more riding on proposed privacy legislation than Alphabet's Google and Facebook. To try to steer the bill their way, the giant advertising technology companies spend millions of dollars to lobby each year, a fact confirmed by government filings. From a report: Not so well-documented is spending to support highly influential think tanks and public interest groups that are helping shape the privacy debate, ostensibly as independent observers. Bloomberg Law examined seven prominent nonprofit think tanks that work on privacy issues that received a total of $1.5 million over a 18-month period ending Dec. 31, 2018. The groups included such organizations as the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Future of Privacy Forum and the Brookings Institution. The actual total is undoubtedly much higher -- exact totals for contributions were difficult to pin down. The tech giants have "funded scores of nonprofits, including consumer and privacy groups, and academics," said Jeffrey Chester, executive director at the Center for Digital Democracy, a public interest group that does not accept donations from Google or Facebook. Further, he says, their influence is strong. The companies have "opposed federal privacy laws and worked to weaken existing safeguards," Chester said. Accepting donations from these "privacy-killing companies enable them to influence decisions by nonprofits, even subtly," he said.

"Mozilla is no longer fighting for market share of its browser: it is fighting for the future of the web," writes the Guardian, citing Mozilla Project co-founder Mitchell Baker: Baker's pitch is that only Mozilla is motivated, first and foremost, to make using the web a pleasurable experience. Google's main priority is to funnel user data into the enormous advertising engine that accounts for most of its revenue. Apple's motivation is to ensure that customers continue to buy a new iPhone every couple of years and don't switch to Android...."

Firefox now runs sites such as Facebook in "containers", effectively hiving the social network off into its own little sandboxed world, where it can't see what's happening on other sites. Baker says: "It reduces Facebook's ability to follow you around the web and track you when you're not on Facebook and just living your life...." Mozilla has launched Monitor, a data-breach reporting service; Lockwise, a password manager; and Send, a privacy-focused alternative to services such as WeSendit. It's also beta-testing a VPN (virtual private network) service, which it hopes to market to privacy-conscious users...

Apple's iOS (mobile operating system) is an acknowledged disaster for Mozilla. Safari is the default and, while users can install other browsers, they come doubly hindered: they can never be set as the default, meaning any link clicked in other applications will open in Safari; and they must use Safari's "rendering engine", a technical limitation that means that even the browsers that Firefox does have on the platform are technically just fancy wrappers for Apple's own browser, rather than full versions of the service that Mozilla has built over the decades... "Even if you do download a replacement, iOS drops you back into the default. I don't know why that's acceptable. Every link you open on a phone is the choice of the phone maker, even if you, as a user, want something else."
Summarizing Baker's concerns, the Guardian writes that "It is perfectly possible to build a browser that prevents advertising companies from aggregating user data. But it is unlikely that any browser made by an advertising company would offer such a feature..."

And an activist for the Small Technology Foundation tells them that Google "wants the web to go through Google. It already mostly does: with eyes on 70% to 80% of the web."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: On Thursday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang put out a sweeping new tech policy proposal with a number of controversial proposals, including taxing digital ads and launching a new department to regulate algorithms on social networks. [...] In his Thursday blog post, Yang argues that his opponents' calls to break-up big tech firms like Facebook and Google fall short of protecting consumers from companies that prioritize "profits over our well-being." Yang's broad tech policy plan attacks the issues plaguing tech from four different angles: promoting a healthy relationship with tech, data ownership and privacy, fighting disinformation, and empowering the federal government with new guidelines and resources to tackle these issues.

Ever since the 2016 election, platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been under fire by public advocates and lawmakers for their failures to remove disinformation from their platforms. In his tech proposal, Yang piggybacks on his digital ads VAT, suggesting that if it were implemented, there would be less false information on social media because platforms would become subscription-based and not be forced to accept advertising at all, let alone misleading political ads. There would also be significant new restrictions on how platforms like Facebook can target users with content. Any algorithms used by "platforms that allow political advertisements or the sharing of news stories" would be required to be open source or at least confidentially shared with Yang's "Department of the Attention Economy." All ads would have to be clearly labeled as such. Yang says he would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- one of the most pivotal laws governing the internet -- but didn't specify what his amendment would look like.

He also pledges to pass a "Digital Bill of Rights, ensuring ownership of data, control over how it's used, and compensation for its use" if he is elected president. Consumers could choose to opt in to have their data collected. "But then you should receive a share of the economic value generated from your data," Yang says.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has launched a social network called WT:Social. It has no financial association with Wikipedia and operates on donations, not advertising. The Next Web reports: WT:Social went live last month and is currently nearing 50,000 users. The company is rolling out access slowly; when I signed up, I was approximately number 28,000 on the waitlist. Alternatively, you can pay 13 bucks a month or 100 a year to get access right away.

In comments to the Financial Times, Wales said "The business model of social media companies, of pure advertising, is problematic. It turns out the huge winner is low-quality content." You don't say. WT:Social's interface is rather sparse at the moment, featuring a simple feed comprised of news stories and comments below them. News is a big part of the network; it's a spinoff of Wales' previous project, WikiTribune, which sought to be a global news site comprised of professional journalists and citizen contributors. Both WikiTribune and WT:Social emphasize combatting fake news, highlighting evidence-based coverage over the focus on "engagement" seen on other networks. Each story posted to the network makes prominent where the article comes from, as well as sources and references.

You can also join various "SubWikis" that are essentially like Facebook groups or subreddits, which filter content to stories of a given topic. You can also add hashtags to a post or follow hashtags for more specific interests that might span more than one SubWiki. Posts are currently sorted chronologically, but the site plans to add an upvote system for users to promote quality stories.

As of Tuesday afternoon, YouTube is requiring creators to label any videos of theirs that may appeal to children. If they say a video is directed at kids, data collection will be blocked for all viewers, resulting in lower ad revenue and the loss of some of the platform's most popular features, including comments and end screens. It's a major change in how YouTube works, and has left some creators clueless as to whether they're subject to the new rules. The Verge reports: Reached by The Verge, Google confirmed that this new system was the result of a landmark $170 million settlement YouTube reached with the Federal Trade Commission in September for allegedly violating children's privacy. It's the largest fine ever collected under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which forbids collecting data from children under the age of 13 without explicit consent from their parents. In this case, the ruling means YouTube can't employ its powerful ad-targeting system on anyone who might be under the age of 13 -- a dire problem for a platform with so many young users.

The new system is already sending creators reeling over what exactly is considered kids' content and what could happen if they unintentionally mislabel videos. Some of YouTube's most popular categories falls into a gray area for the policy, including gaming videos, family vlogging, and toy reviews. [...] In theory, YouTube has always been subject to COPPA, but those restrictions have taken on new urgency in the wake of the recent settlement with the FTC. Under the terms of the settlement, YouTube is required to "develop, implement, and maintain a system for Channel Owners to designate whether their Content on the YouTube Service is directed to Children." Under the system that YouTube rolled out on Tuesday, creators who strictly make children's content can also have their entire channel designated as directed at children. Once a video is labeled as kids' content, all personalized ads will be shut off, replaced with "contextualized" advertising based on the video itself. In addition to the removal of targeted ads, child-directed YouTube videos will also no longer include a comments section, click-through info cards, end screens, notification functions, and the community tab.

"The consequences for not labeling a video as 'child-directed' could be even more severe," reports The Verge. "In its September order, the FTC made it clear that it could sue individual channel owners who abuse this new labeling system. Crucially, those lawsuits will fall entirely on channel owners, rather than on YouTube itself. Under the settlement, YouTube's responsibility is simply to maintain the system and provide ongoing data updates."

Popular health websites are sharing private, personal medical data with big tech companies, according to an investigation by the Financial Times. From a report: The data, including medical diagnoses, symptoms, prescriptions, and menstrual and fertility information, are being sold to companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Oracle and smaller data brokers and advertising technology firms, like Scorecard and OpenX. The FT analyzed 100 health websites, including WebMD, Healthline, health insurance group Bupa, and parenting site Babycentre, and found that 79% of them dropped cookies on visitors, allowing them to be tracked by third-party companies around the internet. This was done without consent, making the practice illegal under European Union regulations. By far the most common destination for the data was Google's advertising arm DoubleClick, which showed up in 78% of the sites the FT tested.

After 24 hours of frenzied buying and selling, and weeks of advertising and promotions before it, the Alibaba Group said today its sales hit another record high on Singles' Day, the biggest shopping day on the planet. From a report: The Chinese e-commerce giant said its 11th Singles' Day event sold goods worth 268 billion yuan, or $38.3 billion, easily exceeding last year's record $30.7 billion haul. Electronics gadgets and fashion items were among the most sold goods this year, company executives said in an interview. More than half a billion people from a number of countries participate in the event, which is China's equivalent to Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Except, Singles' Day is much larger. The five-day Black Friday clocked under $25 billion in sales last year. Alibaba Group said earlier today that it had netted its first $1 billion in sales this year in just 68 seconds. The shopping glitz hosted a number of celebrities including Taylor Swift and Asian pop icon GEM to generate buzz.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has said that he doesn't recall Mark Zuckerberg ever discussing the Iraq War during the early days of the company, contradicting recent comments from the CEO tying the war to his views on free speech. From a report: "I had never heard that before, and the internet had never heard that before," Hughes said an event with the Bay Area Chapter of the American Constitution Society. "I don't remember ever talking about that with Mark." Last month, Zuckerberg told an audience at Georgetown University that discussion about the Iraq War at Harvard, where he was a student, and on Facebook in its embryonic days, played a key role in his controversial positions on policing speech. Unlike other social media companies, Facebook has said it won't ban political advertising nor will it play the role of fact-checker. In claiming that Facebook was meant to promote dialogue about the Iraq War, which began in 2003, Zuckerberg took a departure from the well-known origin tale that includes the development of Facemash, a predecessor to Facebook where students could compare females at the college and decide who was more attractive. [...] "I was at protests protesting the Iraq War," Hughes said. "I did not go to any with Mark Zuckerberg."

Google's proposal to create a level playing field for price comparison shopping rivals to stave off fresh fines has not led to more traffic for its competitors, Europe's antitrust chief said this week. From a report: European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager two years ago slapped Google with a $2.65 billion fine for favoring its own price comparison shopping service and told it to stop its anti-competitive business practices. The world's most popular internet search engine subsequently offered to allow competitors to bid for advertising space at the top of a search page, giving them the chance to compete on equal terms.

The proposal does not seem to be doing the trick, Vestager said. "We may see a show of rivals in the shopping box. We may see a pickup when it comes to clicks for merchants. But we still do not see much traffic for viable competitors when it comes to shopping comparison," she told a Web Summit conference. British price comparison service Foundem, whose original complaint triggered the EU case against Google