Hot Maps

Statement by Michael Weber, Chairman ICOMP:

Advertisers and subsequently consumers pay Google/Alphabet’s billions of profits. Google’s abuse of dominance in the field of third-party search ads fiend today is only one of many advertising forms where the search monopolist tips the balance to its unfair advantage. The large fine today, which took years of investigation to reach, is only minuscule compared to the big picture and will have little effect. Meanwhile, competitors have withered or died. It’s time for the EU and governments around the world to step in and address the underlying wrong:

– Disallow the tying or bundling of Google with web browsers and mobile operating systems.– Enable users to easily find, see and choose Google’s competitors on all desktop and mobile devices– Separate the Google search business from its myriad of other services such as YouTube, Gmail, Android, Maps, Local, Travel, Shopping and so on.

– Reevaluate or undo each passed Google/Alphabet merger and acquisition such as DoubleClick, Waze and many more.

– End the commercial exploitation of citizen’s privacy.

– Reinvest the antitrust fines levied directly into European Commission antitrust resources and staff to more swiftly investigate and effectively deter future violations

###

Twitter: @ICOMPvoices

Streetmap has filed a notice for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeal on 18th March.  In summary Streetmap believes that "a giant's strength needs to be used with care, forethought and restraint not to hinder competition anywhere". The first instance judgement of the High Court gives the ‘giant’ a carte blanche to proceed without due consideration of its legal obligations.

Google is accused by Streetmap of abusing its dominant position in Online Search to the detriment of competitors in related markets; in this case, the online mapping market.  The High Court issued its decision on 12 February 2016 and found that Google had not abused its dominant position and that, even if it had, its actions were objectively justified.

Streetmap is seeking leave to appeal against the decision on three grounds:

                 - Firstly, that the Judge erred in his legal treatment of the test for ‘abuse’. Streetmap contends that there is no ‘de minimis’ threshold for abuse of dominance claims; when Google put Google maps at the top of its search results with an eye-catching map while others had to make do with blue links, that conduct could have (and did) amount to abuse simply because it had a "likely" effect on competition in the online mapping market. The High Court decision creates a new test of showing an "Appreciable Effect" – meaning showing an appreciable effect on all competitors in associated online markets – rather than the test that has applied to date, namely a "likely" effect on those markets. This is critically important. Many abuse of dominance cases come to light shortly after the alleged abuse has happened; having to show appreciable effect would, in many cases, allow the abusive practice to proceed unrestrained, often giving rise to considerable damage to businesses in associated online markets where the fast moving nature of the technology sector requires swift intervention.

                 -Secondly, Streetmap contends that a dominant company has a duty to comply with the law and a special responsibility toward other plays in associated markets as the holder of that dominant market position. Google admitted at the trial that it did not actually consider the likely effect on competition of its actions at the time they were taken. Streetmap thinks that it should have done so.

                 -Thirdly, Streetmap contends that the judgement wrongly interpreted the evidence before the court and had that evidence been interpreted correctly (or applied consistently with the other findings of fact), alternative findings would have been made.

Streetmap maintains the position that Google’s conduct amounted to an abuse of dominance and that the High Court Judgement, as it stands, paves the way for Google to use its dominant position in search, to gain a competitive benefit in any related market, without compliance with its legal obligations. This position is clearly contrary to the approach of the EU commission and contrary to previous findings of UK and EU Competition Law. It sets a dangerous precedent that the internet ‘giant’ that is Google will not be restrained by its Competition Law obligations. Streetmap believes that "a giant's strength needs to be used with care, forethought and restraint not to hinder competition anywhere".

Google, Facebook, Amazon – die neuen Monopolisten

Wer etwas im Internet sucht, der „googelt“. In Deutschland hat Google keinen ernst zu nehmenden Konkurrenten: Wer aber sichert den Nutzern zu, dass die Reihenfolge der Suchergebnisse „neutral“ ist – unbeeinflusst von den ökonomischen Interessen des Betreibers dieser Suchmaschine?

Auch Firmen wie Amazon können womöglich ihre Marktmacht ausnutzen, um ihre Kunden hinters Licht zu führen: Werden erfolgreiche Privatanbieter geschickt unterboten, wenn Amazon die gleichen Waren anbietet?

Google ist dabei, ein Auto, das Google Car, zu entwickeln – haben Industrie-Größen wie Audi oder BMW eigentlich noch das Know-how für fortgeschrittene Software? Müssen die Banken zittern, weil die Online-Riesen demnächst auch ins Bankgeschäft einsteigen?

Self-preferencing is not Innovation

Today in a blog post about the Statement of Objections they were hit with, Google hides behind what they call innovation. Oddly these so-called innovations always result in consumers being funneled into clicking a Google product or paid ad.

The EU has nothing against innovators. As long as the search results are free and fair, meaning Google doesn't benefit from its dominant position in search by inserting own product plugs, they can innovate as much as they want. This also applies to Google Maps units hard-wired into many search result pages, which we expect the Commission to address next.

Google's "innovation" in this case is a paid display ad format, where under European law consumers and competitors have a right to expect unpaid and unbiased real search results.

With Google's 90%-plus market share, as a merchant you better pay Google to be displayed in their "Innovations" or you won't see notable amounts of traffic from search. Naming the other giants eBay and Amazon today as a defense is no justification that Google abuses its dominance in search, and gives small and medium size online merchants mostly paid traffic. These companies in turn have to add the cost for Google ads to their calculation raising consumer prices, or lowering quality, while Google's coffers get filled with cash for their "moonshots".

If you look under real-world conditions at the example Google chose in its blogpost, it will show most consumers only one or two actual search results above the fold, depending on their use of a desktop monitor, laptop or tablet. The rest of the visible page are paid ads or the "Google Shopping Unit". Both drain traffic from competition that is not willing or able to pay Google.

Scientific eye-tracking testing on similar Google layouts showed that most clicks go on the Google product placements or paid ad units, because users don't see the real search results are lower on the page. It also showed users take longer to scan and click a page with various Google units, rather than make a quick choice on the "ten blue links" designed page. So again the benefit of these so-called innovations for consumers and the market remains disputable.

“One never maps a territory that one doesn’t contemplate appropriating. “