雖然近年來美國科技公司已經(jīng)躍升至《財富》500強(qiáng)排行榜靠前的位置，但一直有國外監(jiān)管者指稱其中摻雜了欺騙手段。這會不會導(dǎo)致科技公司成長神話戛然而止？

這里討論的罰款可不是小數(shù)目。今年6月歐盟以違反公平競爭為由向搜索引擎巨頭谷歌開出27億美元的罰單，逼著谷歌在北美和歐洲兩大洲的律師團(tuán)隊絞盡腦汁爭取改判，一旁圍觀的其他美國科技公司也如鯁在喉。

處罰金額其實不是問題：比起谷歌920億美元的現(xiàn)金儲備27億美元不過是很小一筆。真正令人恐懼的是歐盟的處罰只是序幕，今后歐洲和其他地區(qū)的監(jiān)管者都會以公平、隱私和安全為名處罰美國科技公司，甚至影響公司決策。

多年來，美國很多家成功的科技巨頭一直借著全球經(jīng)濟(jì)快速增長的東風(fēng)加速創(chuàng)新，它們給觀察家和股東的印象是，只要他們發(fā)現(xiàn)商機(jī)就能賺到錢。然而去年，各國政府展示了讓蘋果、Facebook等強(qiáng)大巨頭折腰的本事。諷刺的是，大家普遍擔(dān)心特朗普政府掀起保護(hù)主義熱潮，影響全球市場發(fā)展，反而是其他國家的監(jiān)管者首先付諸實踐，高調(diào)實施了跨境打擊。

“全球各地的議員們、行政管理機(jī)構(gòu)和法院都開始拿谷歌、Facebook和亞馬遜開刀，”總部位于紐約的Holwell Shuster & Goldberg律師事務(wù)所跨國律師伊沃·恩切夫表示。目前尚不清楚的是最近這些激進(jìn)舉措到底是短期集中出現(xiàn)，還是會對科技巨頭形成長期威脅。恩切夫補(bǔ)充說，最讓人擔(dān)心的是監(jiān)管者依據(jù)本地法律以前所未有的方式介入公司運營，一旦成真可能導(dǎo)致收入快速增長的趨勢停滯。

沖在最前面的就是歐洲，不管是國家資本，還是歐盟執(zhí)行部門歐盟委員會都在對美國科技公司施加壓力。在支持美國一方的人士眼里，最近對谷歌的裁決之類都是歐洲官僚小肚雞腸失敗者心態(tài)的表現(xiàn)。2015年時任美國總統(tǒng)的巴拉克·奧巴馬就表示，“歐洲的服務(wù)商根本比不上我們美國的，所以總想設(shè)置些障礙。”

當(dāng)然了，出征海外面臨重重困難的的美國科技公司不只谷歌。（詳見本文末《五面出擊》。）去年歐盟委員會也勒令蘋果支付超過130億美元稅費，而歐洲最高法院也支持法國當(dāng)局以非法運營出租車業(yè)務(wù)處罰Uber。除了歐洲，科技巨頭在其他地方日子也不好過。今年6月，加拿大最高法院做出一項知識產(chǎn)權(quán)決定，強(qiáng)迫谷歌不僅在加拿大境內(nèi)，而是在全球范圍內(nèi)刪除某些搜索結(jié)果。俄羅斯和中國則經(jīng)常以國家安全為名要求美國科技公司分享知識產(chǎn)權(quán)。

與此同時，歐洲嚴(yán)格的數(shù)據(jù)和隱私法也顯示出威力。Facebook收購WhatsApp就觸犯了歐洲的隱私法案，其他公司也得耗費大量銀子遵守“遺忘權(quán)”法律抹去用戶上網(wǎng)痕跡。“根據(jù)最近推出的“一般性資料保護(hù)規(guī)則”制度，歐盟居民對個人信息將享有更大的掌控權(quán)。一旦明年正式施行，美國科技企業(yè)的法律顧問要頭疼的事只會更多。如果違反該制度，罰金可達(dá)企業(yè)全球收入的4%。類似法律不僅造成麻煩，還可能妨礙未來的增長：Facebook和谷歌之類公司可能會被迫放棄可推動廣告業(yè)務(wù)增長的用戶數(shù)據(jù)。

最近谷歌的案例中，一些批評者指出歐盟委員會分析在線購物搜索時未納入亞馬遜，這看起來是法律上的疏漏，可能會影響反壟斷罰金。不過對谷歌來說最麻煩的是要重新調(diào)整首頁，加入競爭的購物服務(wù)信息。風(fēng)投公司Andreessen Horowitz合伙人泰德·尤約特曾在喬治·W·布什政府負(fù)責(zé)反壟斷事務(wù)，他指出科技公司最討厭政府下令調(diào)整產(chǎn)品設(shè)計。因為科技公司認(rèn)為類似指令實際上是給了政府軟件開發(fā)的權(quán)限，然而政府并沒有必備知識應(yīng)付相關(guān)挑戰(zhàn)，也不了解根據(jù)現(xiàn)狀制定的商業(yè)模式。

關(guān)于購物建議的判決谷歌可能會繼續(xù)上訴，不過這只是谷歌面臨反壟斷指控的一部分。今年7月，歐盟委員會還在進(jìn)行兩項大型調(diào)查行動，包括谷歌強(qiáng)制安卓設(shè)備制造商預(yù)裝自家應(yīng)用的行為是否妨礙競爭。但谷歌跟其他科技巨頭面臨最大的問題則是，科技企業(yè)文化與滿腦國家利益的立法者之間的沖突。

“在政府眼里，迅速行動顛覆舊模式是另一回事，”風(fēng)投資本家布萊德利·塔斯克表示，他曾在參議院恰克·舒默和前任紐約市長邁克爾·布隆伯格手下?lián)握邔勇殑?wù)，還曾調(diào)停Uber一案。塔斯克還引用古希臘雅典政治家伯利克里的名言補(bǔ)充說，你可以不關(guān)心政治，但政治一定會關(guān)心你。

律師恩切夫也同意科技巨頭與監(jiān)管者的矛盾部分源自文化沖突的說法。“硅谷巨頭們有時對顛覆邏輯過于虔誠和癡迷，”他表示。“結(jié)果通常是忽略本地價值和傳統(tǒng)，而且或多或少有些敵意。”實際上，不管是亞馬遜打擊到英國商業(yè)街，還是Uber以艾因·蘭德式資本主義方式（艾因·蘭德是一位俄裔美國哲學(xué)家、小說家，強(qiáng)烈擁護(hù)自由放任資本主義、反中央集權(quán)主義、反共主義——譯注）入侵法國，都影響了歐洲普通人的生活，其實跟美國工廠倒閉后民粹分子哀嚎一個道理。

很自然，歐洲官員認(rèn)為與硅谷的摩擦在法律上是不可避免的。歐盟反壟斷主管瑪格麗特·維斯塔格自從2014年上任就開始主導(dǎo)懲治科技公司，不過她否認(rèn)存在政治企圖。7月中她就谷歌案接受CNBC采訪時表示，“處罰只是體現(xiàn)了違法行為，違法行為存在多久，處罰就多重。”

維斯塔格說的很可能是實話。實際上，雖然美國法律界看來谷歌案的判決太嚴(yán)酷，但實際上歐洲競爭法跟美國反壟斷法不一樣，不僅看對企業(yè)的損害，還要看對客戶的損害。與此同時，被指玩弄政治的也不只是歐盟，也有歐洲人士質(zhì)疑如果不是大眾排放造假，還是美國本土車企造假，美國聯(lián)邦和州政府的處罰還會不會那么重。

2013年之前尤約特曾擔(dān)任Facebook首席法律顧問，他表示歐洲和其他國家政府的種種行為并不是新鮮事。“這種事也有些周期的，”他表示，并指出2004年歐盟就曾對微軟處以7.94億美元的罰款，理由是在Windows系統(tǒng)中強(qiáng)制捆綁媒體播放器。此外2001年也曾決定組織通用電氣和霍尼韋爾合并，也是歐盟嚴(yán)格監(jiān)管一例。

諷刺的是，雖然歐盟的舉措能影響美國科技公司，對歐洲用戶來說幫助可能并不大。拿上個月的谷歌案來說，歐盟委員會拼命保護(hù)的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品是垂直購物搜索引擎，在亞馬遜和各式購物軟件流行的當(dāng)下其實早已絕跡。（順便提一下，歐盟官員也在挑亞馬遜的毛病，正就圖書銷售推動反壟斷和解，而且在調(diào)查亞馬遜在盧森堡的稅務(wù)安排。）

“如今的反壟斷監(jiān)管經(jīng)常來得太晚，總是在追究過去的問題和爭議，”尤約特表示。不幸的是，對美國公司和股東來說，即便日后證明種種監(jiān)管舉措徒勞無功，但現(xiàn)在就得承受巨額損失，處理一堆麻煩。

五面出擊

全球政府都在利用各種法律對科技領(lǐng)域提起訴訟，這方面美國監(jiān)管者卻行動遲緩。下面是主要幾個戰(zhàn)場：

反壟斷法律

保護(hù)競爭方面的法律是非常強(qiáng)大而且出其不意的工具，歐盟才能針對谷歌的購物垂直引擎和應(yīng)用（進(jìn)行中）發(fā)起各種調(diào)查，還可以就圖書銷售調(diào)查亞馬遜（最近已和解）。

數(shù)據(jù)存儲和隱私法案

歐盟就數(shù)據(jù)方面的侵犯隱私處罰了Facebook多次（包括5月的1.22億美元處罰），7月蘋果也在中國落地了第一組服務(wù)器，就為了符合數(shù)據(jù)本地存儲的規(guī)定。

勞動法

法國不僅針對Uber和管理者征收罰款，還就非法運營出租車提起了刑事訴訟。

國家安全

俄羅斯對思科和IBM等美國公司制造的設(shè)備發(fā)起“后門”攻擊，泄露大批敏感的源代碼，也引發(fā)廣泛擔(dān)心。大部分公司為了打入市場都選擇嚴(yán)格遵守。

稅法

科技公司的稅收安排經(jīng)常有些怪異，在歐洲也導(dǎo)致格外嚴(yán)厲的監(jiān)管，調(diào)查人員仔細(xì)篩查了微軟和亞馬遜等大公司的稅務(wù)安排。去年一項調(diào)查的結(jié)果是蘋果要支付130億美元欠稅。蘋果首席執(zhí)行官蒂姆·庫克稱之為“政治垃圾”。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Pessy

審稿：夏林

U.S. tech companies have soared to the top ranks of the Fortune Global 500 in recent years. Foreign regulators say they did it by cheating. Could their crackdown put an end to a great growth story?

It was no ordinary fine. After the European Commission hit Google (rank no. 65, Fortune Global 500) with a $2.7 billion antitrust penalty in June, in a case related to its shopping results, the search giant scrambled legal teams on two continents to seek redress—while the rest of the U.S. tech industry swallowed hard.

The money wasn’t the issue: $2.7 billion, while a hefty sum, would barely dent Google’s $92 billion cash reserve. But there is genuine fear the EC fine could be the opening salvo in a grisly shoot-out, as regulators in Europe and elsewhere grow emboldened to punish American tech firms, and even meddle in their decision-making, in the name of fairness, privacy, or security.

For years, a handful of the most successful U.S. tech giants have ridden their innovations to rapid global growth, leaving observers and some shareholders with the impression that they can conduct business as they see fit wherever they want. Over the past year, though, national governments have shown they can still bend mighty firms like Apple (rank no. 9, Fortune Global 500) and Facebook (rank no. 393) to their laws. Ironically enough, amid fears that the Trump administration would spook global markets with a wave of protectionist policies, foreign regulators are the ones landing the first high-profile, cross-border blows.

“Legislators, administrative bodies, and courts around the world are starting to take on giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon,” says Ivo Entchev, a transnational lawyer at Holwell Shuster & Goldberg in New York. What’s less clear is whether their recent bold decisions are just a temporary burst of activity, or whether they amount to a long-term, existential threat to the tech behemoths. The fundamental worry, Entchev adds, is that regulators could use local laws to intrude in unprecedented ways into the firms’ operations—potentially putting an end to a remarkable streak of revenue growth.

The vanguard of regulatory action is Europe, where national capitals and the EC, the European Union’s executive arm, are putting the screws to U.S. tech firms. Some on the U.S. side of the Atlantic see the recent Google ruling, and others like it, as examples of Eurocrats behaving like sore losers. As then-President Barack Obama put it in 2015, “Their service providers—who, you know, can’t compete with ours—are essentially trying to set up some roadblocks.”

Google is hardly the only U.S. tech firm getting a rough ride abroad, of course. (See “Fighting on Five Fronts,” at the end of this article.) Over the past year, Apple was hit by the EC with an order to pay more than $13 billion in back taxes, while Europe’s top court is set to bless a decision by French authorities to hit Uber managers with criminal charges for unlicensed taxi operations. Outside of Europe, tech giants are also taking lumps. In June, an intellectual property decision by the Supreme Court of Canada forced Google to delete certain search results not just in Canada but everywhere in the world. Russia and China routinely invoke national security to require American tech innovators to share intellectual property.

Europe’s strict data and privacy laws, meanwhile, are showing their bite. Facebook has been dinged for privacy infractions related to its WhatsApp acquisition, while other companies have run up bills scrubbing information under “right to be forgotten” laws. The General Data Protection Regulation, a new legal regime intended to give EU citizens more control over their data, could create still more heartburn for U.S. general counsels when it goes into effect next year. Noncompliance with the GDPR could incur eye-popping penalties of up to 4% of a company’s global revenues. Such laws are not just a nuisance but a barrier to future growth: For the likes of Facebook and Google, they could choke off the user data that turbocharges their advertising businesses.

In the recent Google case, cynics pointed out that the EC’s analysis did not include Amazon in the definition of the market for online shopping searches—a seeming legal error that would undercut the case for an antitrust penalty. The most troubling part of the ruling for Google, though, was its requirement that the company rearrange its homepage to accommodate competing shopping services. Ted Ullyot, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz who worked on antitrust issues for the George W. Bush administration, points out that tech firms in particular resent governments ordering them to change their product designs. Such orders, they believe, amount to governments behaving as de facto software developers, even though they lack knowledge of the challenges this may entail—or of the business models that depend on the status quo.

The shopping decision, which Google may still appeal, is only one part of the company’s antitrust trouble. As of July, the EC was also conducting two other major investigations, including one that looks at whether contracts that oblige Android device makers to preload Google’s apps are anticompetitive. But Google and other tech leaders also face a bigger problem: the tension between their culture and those of national-interest-minded lawmakers.

“Moving fast and breaking things works differently when it comes to government,” says Bradley Tusk, a venture capitalist who has held senior political roles under Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and worked as a fixer for Uber. Tusk adds an aphorism from Pericles to the effect that just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.

The ire the tech giants are engendering from regulators stems in part from a culture clash, agrees Entchev, the lawyer. “Silicon Valley titans have at times exhibited an evangelical and single-minded devotion to the logic of disruption,” he says. “The corollary has been an insensitivity and a perceived, if not actual, hostility to local values and traditions.” Indeed, the idea of Amazon punching holes in England’s beloved high streets or Uber invading France with Ayn Rand–style capitalism rankles ordinary European citizens as much as shuttered factories gall U.S. populists.

European officials, unsurprisingly, frame their conflicts with Silicon Valley as a cut-and-dried matter of law. Margrethe Vestager, the EU antitrust chief who became the tech industry’s prime tormentor after taking up her post in 2014, has disavowed any political agenda. In the Google case, she told CNBC in mid-July, “the fine is a reflection of the abuse and how long the abuse has taken place.”

Vestager may well be sincere. Indeed, the Google decision seems harsh to American lawyers in part because, unlike U.S. antitrust law, European competition policy focuses on harm to companies as well as to consumers. Meanwhile, EU countries aren’t the only ones accused of playing politics in regulatory actions—some Europeans are asking whether the U.S. federal and state penalties raining down on Volkswagen for its emissions scandal would be as severe if the automaker was American.

Ullyot, who served as Facebook’s first general counsel until 2013, notes that the recent regulatory onset by the Europeans and other governments is hardly new. “We’ve seen a few cycles of this,” he says, pointing to the EU’s $794 million fine against Microsoft, in 2004, for bundling its media player with Windows, and the 2001 decision to block a merger between GE and Honeywell, as other high-water marks of regulatory zeal.

Ironically, while the enforcement actions might trip up U.S. tech companies, they are unlikely to do much to help European consumers. In last month’s Google decision, the EC flexed its muscles to defend an Internet product—vertical search shopping engines—that has become obsolete for many in the age of Amazon and apps. (The Eurocrats, incidentally, are pecking at Amazon too, forcing a recent antitrust settlement over book sales and probing the company’s Luxembourg tax arrangements.)

“Antitrust regulation usually comes way too late in the day. It’s chasing yesterday’s problems and controversies,” says Ullyot. Unfortunately for U.S. companies and their shareholders, even if the current regulatory outburst proves futile on the policy front, it will cost them a lot of money and headaches.

Fighting on Five Fronts

Governments around the world are mounting more legal challenges against the tech sector, wielding tools that U.S. regulators are slower to deploy. Here are the main battlegrounds:

Antitrust litigation

Powerful and unpredictable tools, competition laws have driven sprawling European Union investigations into Google, over its shopping verticals and apps (ongoing), and Amazon, over its book sales (recently settled).

Data storage and privacy laws

The EU has repeatedly fined Facebook over data-related privacy violations (including a $122 million levy in May), while Apple in July installed its first servers in China to comply with rules requiring local data storage.

Labor laws

France not only levied fines against Uber and its managers but also brought a criminal case over unlicensed taxi operations.

National security

Russia has invoked concerns about “back doors” into U.S.-built devices in order to force companies like Cisco and IBM to reveal sensitive source code. Most firms have complied, in order to retain access to the market.

Tax law

The tech industry’s exotic tax arrangements are under extra scrutiny in Europe, with investigators probing companies like Microsoft and Amazon. One investigation led to an order last year for Apple to pay more than $13 billion in back taxes—an arrangement CEO Tim Cook called “political crap.”