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

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.

Topics

Tags

Comments

Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Antitrust, regulatory capture and economic integration

Antitrust, regulatory capture and economic integration

The paper investigates the distortions that national competition authorities generate when they pursue non-competitive goals in favour of domestic firms, and discusses ways to address this negative policy development in a globalised world.

By: Mario Mariniello, Damien Neven and Jorge Padilla Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 22, 2015
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Mario Mariniello
Francesco Salemi

Huawei vs ZTE judgement: a welcome decision?

Today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will rule on a dispute between Chinese tech companies Huawei and ZTE regarding a patent “essential” to the “Long Term Evolution” (LTE) wireless broadband technology standard. 

By: Mario Mariniello and Francesco Salemi Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 15, 2015
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The Google antitrust investigation and the case for internet platform regulation in Europe

Growth & Innovation

Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 15, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Mario Mariniello

Europe should not fear foreign takeovers

Foreign takeovers are often a source of concern for national governments. Concerns might be of a strategic nature (for example over deals in the defence sector) or of a more economic nature. In the latter cases, the public perception is often that, because they are less physically or psychologically attached to the host country, foreign investors could more easily take decisions that harm the host economy, such as downgrading the acquired company’s brand or cutting jobs or research expenditure.

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 17, 2014
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Mario Mariniello

Unbundling Google users from Europe

The European Parliament is about to approve a motion calling for the unbundling of Google's services. But the proposal misses the point: will consumers be better off?

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: November 27, 2014
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Mario Mariniello

Held og lykke, Commissioner Vestager

Tomorrow, new European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager will take control of the Commission’s most powerful tool: the enforcement of European Union competition law.

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: October 31, 2014
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

Antitrust risk in EU manufacturing: A sector-level ranking

Antitrust risk in EU manufacturing: A sector-level ranking

Based on a dataset of manufacturing sectors from five major European economies (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) between 2000 and 2011, we identify a number of key sector-level features that, according to established economic research, have a positive impact on the likelihood of collusion. Each feature is proxied by an ‘Antitrust Risk […]

By: Mario Mariniello and Marco Antonielli Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 7, 2014
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Joaquín Almunia

Competition Policy enforcement as a driver for growth

Joaquín Almunia, European Commissioner for Competition, shares with you some general views on competition policy.

By: Joaquín Almunia Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 4, 2014
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Mario Mariniello

Why competition policy matters for growth?

Economic literature suggests that competition can have broad economic effects in three areas: the total amount of economic wealth available in the market at a given point of time, companies’ productive process, and their incentives to innovate or improve the quality of their products.

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 18, 2014
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Video

Video

The EU antitrust dilemma: commitments or prohibition?

Bruegel fellow Mario Mariniello discusses his latest paper, "Commitments or prohibition? The EU antitrust dilemma." He analyses the different implications of settling a case in exchange for a commitment of the company under investigation as opposed to applying formal sanctions. Using the European Commission’s case against Google as an example, he calls for more transparency […]

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 31, 2014
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Brief

Commitments or prohibition? The EU antitrust dilemma

Commitments or prohibition? The EU antitrust dilemma

Commitments have a cost: commitments are voluntary and are unlikely to be subject to judicial review. This reduces the European Commission’s incentive to build a robust case. Because commitment decisions do not establish any legal precedent, they provide for little guidance on the interpretation of the law.

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 31, 2014
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Mario Mariniello

The year in antitrust and competition policy

To start 2014, Bruegel's Mario Mariniello shares his thoughts on antitrust and competition policy in the year just passed and the one ahead.

By: Mario Mariniello Topic: Energy & Climate, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 9, 2014
Load more posts