Antitrust in the New Economy Case Google Inc. Against Economic Competition on Web (original) (raw)
Related papers
Google's Anti-competitive and Unfair Practices, Competition Law Review
The purpose of this article is to reflect on the critical use of commitments in the Google case and to analyse and review the matrix of facts that have been highlighted in the academic and practitioner literature. Therefore, the core areas of reflection in this contribution are: relevant markets; barriers to entry; network and lock-in effects; dominance; and, potential anticompetitive, as well as unfair practices as regards commercial advertisements. The analysis of the online search-engine market is complemented by the comparative insights offered by the US class action against Google's Android mobile applications. In the EU, a similar trend is noticeable in the complaining tone of Google's competitors. When this is coupled with the transitional period of the mandate of the newly appointed Commissioner for Competition and the political sensitivity over the potential to misuse search-engine users' personal data to serve commercial purposes, such as boosting its advertising revenues, the giant Google swims in uncertain waters.
Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust Case Against Google
2011
ABSTRACT The antitrust landscape changed dramatically in the last decade. Within the last two years alone, the Department of Justice has held hearings on the appropriate scope of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and has issued, then repudiated, a comprehensive Report. During the same time, the European Commission has become an aggressive leader in single-firm conduct enforcement by bringing abuse of dominance actions and assessing heavy fines against firms including Qualcomm, Intel, and Microsoft.
Università della Calabria, 2021
Google has been the object of three investigations from the EU Commission, two of them are the cases AT.40099, for Google Android and case AT. 40411 for AdSense. Both cases consider abuse of dominant position realized by tying products and imposing obligations in adhesive contracts, respectively. This thesis analyzes the arguments employed by the Commission on their investigation, comparing them with legal concepts and procedures given by the EU Competition legislation. Also, this work explains how these services function under the Alphabet's structure (current Google's headquarters). Last, the remedies and the method of calculating the fines are evaluated, closing with the consequences of the decision, in terms of how Google reacted.
Regulating Smart Cities, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, 2-3 July, 2015, 2015
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case C-131/12 Google v AEPD and Gonzalez of May 2014 is important for several reasons. Not only because it prompts the right to be forgotten and liability of Internet search engine operators for content published by third parties, but also because it subjects Internet search engine operators to data protection legislation. These operators are characterised as data controllers, their activities as data processing activities, within the meaning of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, while a number of issues related to applicability of Article 7(f) thereof remain unsettled. Besides departing from the Advocate General’s opinion in this case, these aspects of the judgment provoked controversy in scientific and professional circles. In this paper, authors examine reasons offered by the CJEU, in particular related to the abovementioned features of the ruling. Besides, authors focus on some other issues which seem to be insufficiently addressed in the judgment, such as the liability of Internet search engine operators and the implications on the legal scheme for Internet service providers under the E-Commerce Directive 200/31/EC. The proposition is put forward that the CJEU judgment errors in finding legal ground for Internet search engine operators’ activities in Article 7(f), due to inherent lack of possibility of Internet search engine operators to conduct ex ante balancing test. As a result, the CJEU’s finding about Internet search engine operators as data controllers is called into question. Inconsistencies may also be found in attempting to establish their liability, which is equally tied to the awareness of and control over the data. Therefore, more convergence is recommended with the scheme under the E-Commerce Directive.
2016
1. Introduction In what is undoubtedly the most high-profile antitrust case of this moment, tech giant Google has been hit with a string of allegations with regard to its business practices. These allegations led Europe’s highest competition authority, the European Commission (hereafter: Commission), towards initiating formal proceedings against Google. The Google saga has been keeping legal practitioners, academia, competition authorities and courts busy since 2010. In November of that year, the first allegations were made with regard to Google’s online search services. The allegations accused Google of systematically favouring its own online search services (including its comparison shopping service ‘Google Shopping’) to the detriment of that of its rival providers by treating its competitors’ services unfavourably in Google’s search results. In April 2015, a second investigation was launched into Google with regard to its mobile operating system, Android, and its applications suite, Google Apps. While these cases are still pending, it seems that Google’s legal woes are far from over. The latest news suggests that the Commission is taking steps towards a third investigation against Google, this time over its ‘AdWords’ advertising service. What all three investigations have in common is that the submitted allegations revolve around Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter: TFEU), which prohibits undertakings from abusing their dominant market position. The focus of this bachelor thesis shall be Google Android case, as this is not only the most recent still pending case, it also raises several thought-provoking and far-reaching questions that lie at the core of EU competition law. These legal questions shall therefore be carefully assessed from an EU competition law perspective. While doing so, the particular challenges of the application of Article 102 TFEU by the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter: CJEU) shall be highlighted. Special attention shall be given to the wider (EU) digital sector and its significance in the field of EU competition law. The thesis shall be concluded by evaluating whether the Google Android case is a wake-up call for a different approach by the Commission and the CJEU.
Searching inside Google: Cases, Controversies and the Future of the World's Most Provocative Company
2010
For a company whose motto is "Do No Evil," Google certainly has its share of detractors. The company is at the center of numerous controversies that will determine how people use the Internet, find information, and communicate with each other. Professor Jon Garon explores the cases that will shape Google's future and the implications for copyright and trademark owners, including: the latest AdWords' case Rescuecom v. Google, the proposed Book Search settlement, the Viacom v. YouTube copyright infringement case, and looming antitrust investigations. He also will speculate about the future of Google as it consolidates its control over online search and advertising and expands into telecommunications, mobile devices and cloud computing.
ANTITRUST ALLEGATIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DIGITAL INNOVATION EXPERT
Explain and reflect upon the antitrust allegations against Google, Apple, Facebook, or Amazon from the perspective of a digital innovation expert. Digital Innovation is the use of technology in order to solve problems regarding the business, products or services 1. It has transformed the way businesses conduct tasks and nowadays it is more complicated for them to capture value. Managers focus on substantially different aspects of the business than they used to and one of the characteristics of the digitized era is that production costs have decreased, but the system's total cost of ownership has increased significantly. Moreover, it is supposed to be easier for startups to have dominant power, but in the end it comes out that various dominant firms can detect potential threats at an early stage and they do not let smaller firms act as they wish, since they are afraid that they might lose market power. This is totally forbidden in free market societies, which support competition, that could bring a better outcome for everyone. Simultaneously, there are increasing concerns over the accumulated power of big tech that can alter the face of the market. These digital companies shape the Internet ecosystem and that has led to the existence of the so-called new economy 2. Four firms recently accused of violating the freedom of the market and leverage are Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, and even though each one has been charged with different accusations, all of them seem to have some common characteristics. Their decisions could affect the rest of the people, they have the ability to charge as much as they want their users and violate their privacy, they manage to raise too much power that affects negatively the market and they often abuse technology to ensure market power and expand 3. In this paper, we will discuss the question if allegations against these companies are satisfied and what the role of digital innovations in the allegations is.