4 ms·

US anti-trust actions have historically been triggered by abuse of market dominance (e.g. leveraging market dominance in other markets; anti-competitive behavio

US anti-trust actions have historically been triggered by abuse of market dominance (e.g. leveraging market dominance in other markets; anti-competitive behavior in a dominated market) which is not coupled to the ease of using a different service. Ease-of-switching puts the onus on the user to recognize corporate violations of anti-trust law rather than upon the company violating anti-trust regulation. It doesn't really make sense to presume users would or should change their behavior if a provider violates anti-trust law.

scarface74 7y ago
I keep seeing that “companies shouldn’t use their dominance in one area to get into another area”. So does that mean that Netflix shouldn’t have used its dominance in DVD rentals to get into streaming and just die when another company did? Should Apple not have been allowed to use its dominance in the music/media player business to get into the smart phone business? Antitrust was traditionally used when a company kept other competitors out. How is Google stopping another competitor from creating a search engine? The fact is that no one is forced to use Google. People can just as easily type bing.com in their browser as google.com. In fact, the dominant desktop OS, doesn’t have Google as the default search engine and thanks to a consent decree - at least in the EU - Google cant force manufacturers of Android devices to make it the default search engine. If Microsoft wanted to outbid Google to be the default search engine on iOS devices it could.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  > It is illegal for a dominant company such as Google to use its dominance in one market in order to provide its own product an anti-competitive advantage in a separate market, the European Commission has recently decided. > Such conduct constitutes an abuse of a dominant position and hence is in breach of competition law. > It is not illegal for a company to enjoy dominance in a particular market. However, a company which is dominant in one market can easily use its market power to cement or further expand its dominance, or leverage it into separate markets. [0] Regarding Netflix and Apple, the answer is "it depends". Cases are determined on a case-by-case basis. Not sure we disagree (?). My understanding is that Google has a practical monopoly on search. This is not illegal in and of itself. Anti-competitive practices that leverage its dominance in search, however, would likely run afoul of EU and US antitrust regulations. (I'm not an attorney, and My understanding of antitrust law is at the level of layperson. ) [0] https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-of-market-dominance.653057 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-...

scarface74 7y ago

I keep seeing that “companies shouldn’t use their dominance in one area to get into another area”. So does that mean that Netflix shouldn’t have used its dominance in DVD rentals to get into streaming and just die when another company did? Should Apple not have been allowed to use its dominance in the music/media player business to get into the smart phone business? Antitrust was traditionally used when a company kept other competitors out. How is Google stopping another competitor from creating a search engine? The fact is that no one is forced to use Google. People can just as easily type bing.com in their browser as google.com. In fact, the dominant desktop OS, doesn’t have Google as the default search engine and thanks to a consent decree - at least in the EU - Google cant force manufacturers of Android devices to make it the default search engine. If Microsoft wanted to outbid Google to be the default search engine on iOS devices it could.

mistersquid 7y ago
> It is illegal for a dominant company such as Google to use its dominance in one market in order to provide its own product an anti-competitive advantage in a separate market, the European Commission has recently decided. > Such conduct constitutes an abuse of a dominant position and hence is in breach of competition law. > It is not illegal for a company to enjoy dominance in a particular market. However, a company which is dominant in one market can easily use its market power to cement or further expand its dominance, or leverage it into separate markets. [0] Regarding Netflix and Apple, the answer is "it depends". Cases are determined on a case-by-case basis. Not sure we disagree (?). My understanding is that Google has a practical monopoly on search. This is not illegal in and of itself. Anti-competitive practices that leverage its dominance in search, however, would likely run afoul of EU and US antitrust regulations. (I'm not an attorney, and My understanding of antitrust law is at the level of layperson. ) [0] https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-of-market-dominance.653057 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-...