If you seriously believe in such endemic corruption, you could equally fantasise that Google has enough money to buy a not-guilty verdict, yet the EU will remain impartial?
In fact, in the US, Google HAS bought a non-guilty verdict. The US counterpart of Ms. Vestager is the commissioner of the FTC. For two years, that person was a paid Google spokesperson, and the case against Google that had been building here in the US was found by their staff to have merit, yet quietly buried. As soon as their paid shill stepped down last year, the investigation was reopened.
(Sources can be provided. If you doubt any claim here, please ask!)
This is interesting information and worth bringing up. However, there are some important legal differences between a decision not to prosecute and a verdict in court.
For example, if Google had actually received a "not guilty" verdict on this issue, it wouldn't have been possible to reopen the investigation at all.
So, it starts with a slightly different form of sleezy behavior: Google paid a university to write "academic studies" that Google would then claim demonstrated that Google wasn't anticompetitive.
One of the professors, who was the author of many of those "studies" is Joshua Wright, who thereafter took the FTC Commissioner position in 2013. Note that the Google checks to GMU started the same month as the FTC probe began.
Note that the close relationship between Google and this White House have been well documented. Googlers are some of Obama's top contributors in the previous Presidential election, numerous Googlers have taken high-ranking positions at the White House, and Google executives or representatives visit weekly. So I have a hard time buying that any of this is coincidence.
And the rumor is, that within like a month of Joshua Wright resigning, the FTC started investigating Google antitrust again.
How much of an effect would $6B really have on the EU? According to Wikipedia[0], their GDP is around $16,800 billion. If I were the judge I wouldn't see any reason to believe my community would derive any measurably benefit from that income.
If a politician came to them and said, "we're going to use that $6B to fund this particular program," well sure, but that would seem to be a subset of bribery.
