Opinion

Users could be losers in ‘EU vs Google’

The debate misses a crucial point: the purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not competitors. Google’s undue penalization of a particular vertical-search site matters only if the demotion of the site’s links harms end users.

By: Date: October 17, 2013 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

Is Google’s dominance of online search coming to an end? That is a question worth asking, as the European Commission investigates antitrust allegations regarding Google’s online-search business model.

Type “Restaurant Florence” into Google’s search field, and a list of restaurants that you might want to visit during your next trip to Italy will appear. The top suggestions are Google’s own. Farther down the page, links to so-called “vertical search” sites – such as TripAdvisor, Fodor’s, ViaMichelin, and Lonely Planet – appear.

But users often do not see these links. With Google’s links capturing most of the site’s search traffic, concerns have been raised that Google manipulates its search algorithm to suppress the results of its competitors, while unfairly promoting its own services – a practice known as “search bias.” The European Commission has other concerns, too – namely, that Google might be using third-party content without authorization and entering into agreements to prevent its advertising partners from displaying ads on rival search engines.

Reservations about the use of third-party content could easily be addressed through carefully designed rules that would allow, say, content providers to opt out of Google’s results. Addressing concerns about Google’s display of vertical-search sites, which target specific industries or sectors, would be trickier.

Google controls roughly 90% of Europe’s search-engine market. Though other search engines exist, almost everyone surfs the Internet via Google. While this has attracted the antitrust authorities’ attention, it also highlights how much users value Google’s service.

Antitrust intervention is warranted if there are serious concerns to address. But unnecessarily invasive intervention could undermine the product that Google provides and deprive users of what they want: easy access to information.

Earlier this year, in an effort to dispel the Commission’s concerns, Google offered to flag search results that draw users to Google’s own services. The company also proposed increasing the visibility of its rivals’ links by pushing them higher up on the results page, next to Google’s results. But the European Commission deemed the proposals inadequate.

Google’s next set of proposals extended its commitments to all devices, including mobile phones and tablets, and offered to increase its competitors’ visibility by allowing rivals to display logos next to their links. It also refined the auction mechanism to select rival links for display directly adjacent to Google’s.

On October 1, the European Union’s antitrust chief, Joaquín Almunia, responded to these proposals, saying that Google had “improved the commitments it [initially] offered.” Almunia is optimistic that a settlement will be reached next spring, so long as Google buttresses its proposals with evidence proving their effectiveness.

Google’s competitors remain skeptical. They believe that enhanced visibility for their links will not increase traffic to their Web sites, and claim that the only way to avoid abuse is to prevent Google from using its algorithm to rank search results. If they get their way, it could mean the death of Google’s business model.

But this debate misses a crucial point: the purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not competitors. Google’s undue penalization of a particular vertical-search site matters only if the demotion of the site’s links harms end users.

Less than a year ago, the US Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust department heard a similar case. The FTC determined that, although Google sought an advantage over rival search engines, “the evidence did not demonstrate that Google’s actions…stifled competition.” After all, users can access other vertical-search engines if they so choose. The fact that they often do not indicates that users find Google’s search engine more appealing.

To be sure, the FTC’s findings are not directly applicable to Europe, because the European and US markets are different. Not only is Google’s market share in the EU much greater; European users may have different preferences. But it does not follow that the European Commission’s concerns are self-evident. Unfortunately, if there is a settlement, the Commission will not have to explain its investigation thoroughly, so we are unlikely to know how sound its case is.

There is certainly merit in seeking a settlement: concerns are addressed quickly, which is especially important in highly dynamic industries like Google’s. But settling is also a gamble, and Almunia has a tough call to make. If Google’s search practices really do harm consumers, Almunia risks agreeing to a settlement that does not solve the problem. If consumers are not suffering, Google’s proposed remedies are unnecessary. In the worst-case scenario, Google’s proposals are implemented, and users discover that Google’s products are not as good as they used to be. Such an outcome would be bad for competition – and for consumers.

This article was first published by Project Syndicate.

Full disclosure: Bruegel is supported by a number of public and private members, including Google and Microsoft. Neither was involved in the writing of this commentary, and their contributions amounted to 1.3% of Bruegel’s total 2012 budget. A full list of members and their contributions can be found here.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article

External Publication

Economic Implications of Further Harmonisation of Electronic Communications Regulation in the EU

One of the ways in which the European Commission has sought over the years to strengthen the European single market is by means of increased harmonisation of the regulation of electronic communications. To the extent that the European Union functions as a confederation of somewhat autonomous member states, however, there are both practical and political limits to the degree of harmonisation that is realistically desirable or achievable.

By: J. Scott Marcus and Christian Wernick Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: August 11, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
5
12:30

Crowd Employment

This event aims to discuss the various nuances and diversity that characterize crowd employment.

Speakers: Cristiano Codagnone, Valerio Michele De Stefano, Irene Mandl, Georgios Petropoulos and Amit Singh Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The US Antitrust Counter-Revolution

Plenty of recent research has highlighted a rise in concentration in the US economy, across different sectors. Economists are now wondering to what extent this is attributable to a shift in the antitrust enforcement philosophy. We review contributions to this debate.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 31, 2017
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

Geo-blocking in the digital single market

Geo-blocking is a discriminatory practice that is wide-spread in EU. It prevents online customers from accessing and purchasing products or services from a website based in another member state

Speakers: Marine Elgrichi, J. Scott Marcus, Fabian Paagman, Bertin Martens, Georgios Petropoulos, Agustin Reyna, Gareth Shier, Werner Stengg and Roza von Thun Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 30, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Standardisation and patents: problems and policy options

Bruegel together with the Association for Competition Economics (ACE), is hosting an event on standardization and SEP licensing.

Speakers: Aleksandra Boutin, Georgios Petropoulos, Rebekka Porath, Pierre Regibeau and Hughes de la Motte Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 9, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

From start-up to scale-up: examining public policies for the financing of high-growth ventures

What are the challenges of financing scale-ups, and how can long-term public policies support the creation of a better scale-up environment?

By: Gilles Duruflé, Thomas Hellmann and Karen E. Wilson Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 10, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

High expectations for 5G confront practical realities

The next wave of mobile network innovation is provoking great excitement in the industry. And indeed, there is substantial potential for improvement. However, the exact form of the technology and the appropriate policy support are still far from clear. And we should beware of over-ambitious promises about the impact and uptake of new network technologies.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 14, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Intellectual Property and Competition Policy in Europe and Japan

Intellectual property (IP) is a cornerstone for incentivising innovation initiatives. It defines a framework within which firms and individuals can produce creations of intellect.

Speakers: Peter Alexiadis, Reiko Aoki, Michael Koenig, Kai-Uwe Kühn and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 14, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Extending the scope of the geo-blocking prohibition: an economic assessment

This paper was prepared for the European Parliament at the request of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

By: J. Scott Marcus and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 27, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Big data and first-degree price discrimination

What’s at stake: first-degree price discrimination - or person-specific pricing, had until recently been considered a theoretical case with unlikely real-world application. Yet the increasing availability of big data could make this possible. We review recent contributions on this issue.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 20, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How good a shield is Privacy Shield?

Privacy Shield was put in place in 2016 to ensure that transfers of personal data from the EU to the US would be in compliance with European Union privacy law, and thus permissible. The institutional framework of Privacy Shield was weak, and depended on the good will of the US administration. Recent actions by the new administration, including the famous executive order forbidding residents from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to enter the US, may have (presumably unintended) effects on Privacy Shield. To preserve the validity of Privacy Shield in European Courts, strong EU-US cooperation and potentially additional agreements may become necessary.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 7, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

State Aid and Tax Rulings

When do national tax rulings violate EU state aid rules? Does the European Commission's approach raise concerns about Member State Sovereignity and what is the impact on corporate investments in Europe?

Speakers: Clemens Fuest, Damien Neven, Gert-Jan Koopman, Nicole Robins and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 1, 2017
Load more posts