Google's Anti-Competitive and Unfair Practices in Digital Leisure Markets
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 area of reflection in this contribution are relevant markets; barriers to entry; network and lock-in effects; dominance; and potential anti-competitive, 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. 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.
The regulation of zero-price markets by the competition authorities in the USA and the EU
The modern economy is flooded with products that have no monetary price. However, it is becoming something of an established fact that many zero-price products are not ‘free’ but rather incur costs for consumers in other ways. Many governments intervene in markets when consumers are not being given a fair price for their products. If the costs to consumers for some products are not monetary however, how can governments evaluate whether the costs that consumers are incurring are too high? We seek to answer this question by assessing the approaches of the US and the EU to zero-price markets as informed by their legal and ideological traditions. We offer potential policy solutions while outlining the difficulties that accompany government intervention in zero-price markets and the obstacles when it comes to measuring non-monetary forms of consumer cost.
Search Neutrality as an Antitrust Principle
Google's perceived dominance in Internet search, and the perception that Google exploits this dominance to favor its own websites and service, has led to call for a mandatory legal requirement of "search neutrality." This essay argues that a general principle of search neutrality ignores the realities of Internet search and would stymie search innovation.