4 ms·

From the press release >Google has abused this market dominance by preventing rivals from competing in the online search advertising intermediation market. >B

by Veelox 8y ago

From the press release >Google has abused this market dominance by preventing rivals from competing in the online search advertising intermediation market. >Based on a broad range of evidence, the Commission found that Google's conduct harmed competition and consumers, and stifled innovation. Google's rivals were unable to grow and offer alternative online search advertising intermediation services to those of Google. As a result, owners of websites had limited options for monetizing space on these websites and were forced to rely almost solely on Google. This just doesn't make sense to me. So Google offers the website search functionality. It then says "If you want to run ads, you have to use our ads" a few years later Google says "If you want to run ads, you have to give us the best N spots, and all other ads have to be approved by us." Because of this the EU concludes "rivals were unable to grow and offer alternative online search advertising intermediation services." I am really trying to read the logic some other way but the logic appears to be as follows 1) Google let people set up search pages on individual websites. 2) Google set the terms for ads on those search pages so that Google had exclusive/best ad spots on those search pages. 3) 2 limited competitors ability to develop an alternative to 1. 4) Because Google had a dominate market position, 3 is illegal and should be fined. This honestly feels pants-on-the-head crazy to me because I do not see how this logic doesn't apply to Google.com. Should Google be forced to let Bing run adds on "google.com/search?q=shoes"? No! Yet if it is "ShoeReviews.com/search?q=shoes" suddenly Google is required to let Bing run adds on it. Edit: Formatting

squaresmile 8y ago
I think a thing to keep in mind is this is about antitrust and "Google is dominant in the market for online search advertising intermediation in the EEA". Exclusivity deal was nothing strange but abusing "this market dominance by preventing rivals from competing in the online search advertising intermediation market." wasn't ok. The exclusivity deal might have been fine were it not for Google's dominant position.
Msurrow 8y ago
Based on the bloomberg videoclip showing Vestager explaining the decision: You have your second point (bullet 2) wrong. Google’s exclusivity clause said that if you use google search-box on your site you cannot use any other ad broker on any of you other sites.
tripzilch 8y ago
The market dominance is really the key thing here. Just like last time Google was caught pants-down violating it, anti-trust goes like this: If you use market dominance in one market, to stifle competition in another market, that's anti-trust! The one market is Search, the other is Advertising.

by Veelox 8y ago

squaresmile 8y ago

I think a thing to keep in mind is this is about antitrust and "Google is dominant in the market for online search advertising intermediation in the EEA". Exclusivity deal was nothing strange but abusing "this market dominance by preventing rivals from competing in the online search advertising intermediation market." wasn't ok. The exclusivity deal might have been fine were it not for Google's dominant position.

Msurrow 8y ago

Based on the bloomberg videoclip showing Vestager explaining the decision: You have your second point (bullet 2) wrong. Google’s exclusivity clause said that if you use google search-box on your site you cannot use any other ad broker on any of you other sites.

tripzilch 8y ago

The market dominance is really the key thing here. Just like last time Google was caught pants-down violating it, anti-trust goes like this: If you use market dominance in one market, to stifle competition in another market, that's anti-trust! The one market is Search, the other is Advertising.