@mouser: I wondered about that too, when it popped into my bazqux feed-reader, and I assumed that, given what has been commented above in this thread, none of this should really come as a surprise to us.
Eric Schmidt and his colleagues are up there in the stratosphere, maximising profits, pulling the strings, out of our reach, and as a corporate legal entity are arguably in a politically, legally and economically vastly superior and dominant position compared to our lesser legal entities and whatever residual "legal rights" we might amusingly imagine ourselves to have.
Google is a great corporation.
If the perceived problem here is "anti-competitve behaviour", or something, then the likely/apparent causal problem is that Capitalism (the economic dogma of capitalism) encourages/necessitates profit-seeking strategies and "competition" often to the exclusion of considerations of moral, ethical, or legal obligations. It's a never-ending game to "play the system", and if one is successful at it, it creates wealth out of thin air (usually with no productive effort/result).
When we use the Internet, we are generally the product (or our data is) and the puppets in this game, and we pay for the privilege to enter into and play in the game (wittingly or otherwise).
Google is a leader, part of an oligopoly - if it isn't a monopoly - and can probably do whatever the heck it wants, with impunity.
Unfortunately, when one tries to address the apparent causal problem (i.e., Capitalism), one runs smack into the brick wall that other economic ideologies seem to have done - e.g., the Communist/Socialist "command economy" system.
So, Google apparently used their position to gain an unfair advantage, eh?
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.
Google is a great corporation.
