When it comes to an Internet “search,” Google is by far the most dominant player in the global market. The California-based company now handles 65 percent of search engine traffic in the United States and almost 90 percent in Europe.
As we all know, the search engine giant also provides other products, such as images, maps, Google Earth, Google Shopping and the like. When its market dominance is combined with these other products, an anti-competition problem may arise ― at least that is what worries the European Commission.
The European Commission has established a new antitrust investigation against Google. In its Statement of Objection issued to Google on April 15, 2015, the first formal step for antitrust investigation under the EU law, the European competition watchdog accused the company of abusing its dominant position in the market.
Google emerged unscathed from a similar antitrust problem in the United States in early 2013 when the Federal Trade Commission dropped the investigation, presumably in exchange for the tech giant’s voluntary adjustment of its business practice.
The problem now in the EU is Google Shopping. When a customer uses the U.S. search engine for shopping-related information, it displays its Google Shopping products at the top of search results. In other words, users see Google Shopping products first, followed by other items related to their queries. Through this “Me First” display, so goes the contention, rival brands lose opportunities of fair competition in the EU and thus European consumers are harmed.
The issue here is not just Google’s dominance in Internet search. The dominance is conspicuous in the EU market, as Google enjoys a 90 percent market share in the region. The issue is whether the tech giant has abused its dominance.
The EU’s point in its Statement of Objection is that displaying Google’s products first amounts to such an abuse of dominance. The allegation theorizes that there should be an objective sequence of products when a person uses a search engine. By changing the sequence and putting Google’s products at the top of the list, has an abuse of dominance taken place?
The upcoming legal battle will determine this new question. At any rate, the notion that a search result has a predestined sequence in a particular order, the change of which would skew the competition, will galvanize interesting discussions on this novel issue.
In my case, clicking on a search engine instantly provides thousands of results, and then I randomly go through the results by looking at titles and the short key statements captured under the titles. I try to filter the information and find the most suitable site.
Often times the order of the list just provides a reference guide, but not an exact order to decision-making ― at least in my case. Sometimes my serious reading starts from page two or three of the search results.
Perhaps an Internet search, by definition, involves a high level of subjective judgment anyway. It seems difficult to imagine there is a fixed order that should be followed all the time.
Pick any shop around us. If asked for a recommendation, a merchant’s suggestion would start from their own line of products. It is then up to us to take that recommendation into consideration by also accounting for the fact that the product is their own brand and that bias may have tainted their recommendation.
But then again, the whole commonsensical discussion may not apply to Google. This is a tech giant that affects every corner of our lives with absolute market dominance. After all, its recommendation may come with tremendous ― sometimes irresistible ― weight.
By Lee Jae-min
Lee Jae-min is an associate professor of law at Seoul National University. ― Ed.
As we all know, the search engine giant also provides other products, such as images, maps, Google Earth, Google Shopping and the like. When its market dominance is combined with these other products, an anti-competition problem may arise ― at least that is what worries the European Commission.
The European Commission has established a new antitrust investigation against Google. In its Statement of Objection issued to Google on April 15, 2015, the first formal step for antitrust investigation under the EU law, the European competition watchdog accused the company of abusing its dominant position in the market.
Google emerged unscathed from a similar antitrust problem in the United States in early 2013 when the Federal Trade Commission dropped the investigation, presumably in exchange for the tech giant’s voluntary adjustment of its business practice.
The problem now in the EU is Google Shopping. When a customer uses the U.S. search engine for shopping-related information, it displays its Google Shopping products at the top of search results. In other words, users see Google Shopping products first, followed by other items related to their queries. Through this “Me First” display, so goes the contention, rival brands lose opportunities of fair competition in the EU and thus European consumers are harmed.
The issue here is not just Google’s dominance in Internet search. The dominance is conspicuous in the EU market, as Google enjoys a 90 percent market share in the region. The issue is whether the tech giant has abused its dominance.
The EU’s point in its Statement of Objection is that displaying Google’s products first amounts to such an abuse of dominance. The allegation theorizes that there should be an objective sequence of products when a person uses a search engine. By changing the sequence and putting Google’s products at the top of the list, has an abuse of dominance taken place?
The upcoming legal battle will determine this new question. At any rate, the notion that a search result has a predestined sequence in a particular order, the change of which would skew the competition, will galvanize interesting discussions on this novel issue.
In my case, clicking on a search engine instantly provides thousands of results, and then I randomly go through the results by looking at titles and the short key statements captured under the titles. I try to filter the information and find the most suitable site.
Often times the order of the list just provides a reference guide, but not an exact order to decision-making ― at least in my case. Sometimes my serious reading starts from page two or three of the search results.
Perhaps an Internet search, by definition, involves a high level of subjective judgment anyway. It seems difficult to imagine there is a fixed order that should be followed all the time.
Pick any shop around us. If asked for a recommendation, a merchant’s suggestion would start from their own line of products. It is then up to us to take that recommendation into consideration by also accounting for the fact that the product is their own brand and that bias may have tainted their recommendation.
But then again, the whole commonsensical discussion may not apply to Google. This is a tech giant that affects every corner of our lives with absolute market dominance. After all, its recommendation may come with tremendous ― sometimes irresistible ― weight.
By Lee Jae-min
Lee Jae-min is an associate professor of law at Seoul National University. ― Ed.
-
Articles by Korea Herald