5 ms·
Because, as I understand it, Google was saying that if you used it search service, you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. Y
by Angostura 8y ago
Because, as I understand it, Google was saying that if you used it search service, you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site.
You couldn't just use Google Search and accept ads in those search results a cost of use. This sounds rather like abuse of a dominant position in one area to squash competitors in another.
- Veelox 8y ago>you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. Can I get a link or a quote to support that? If that is the case then yes, it crosses a line but I didn't see any in the linked article to support that view. Edit: I reread the article and I think you are wrong. It specifically says on search pages. From the article >In 2006, Google started to include "exclusivity clauses" in contracts which stopped publishers from placing ads from Google rivals such as Microsoft and Yahoo on search pages, the Commission said. >From 2009, Google started replacing the exclusivity clauses with "premium placement" clauses, which meant publishers had to keep the most profitable space on their search results pages for Google's adverts and they had to request a minimum number of Google adverts.
- gamblor956 8y agoThe premium placement clause for a different Google product is still an antitrust violation. Antitrust law, despite the name, isn't limited to abuses of monopoly power. It includes the use of dominant market positions in one market to reduce competition in another.
- Angostura 8y agoI think I'm wrong too. Here's the EC press release explaining the rationale: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm