Blog Post

The pros and cons of the EU vs Google settlement

After more than three years, the European Commission and Google are moving towards a settlement of antitrust charges: most importantly, of the allegation that Google intentionally demoted rivals’ links in its search engine results.

By: Date: February 17, 2014 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

After more than three years, the European Commission and Google are moving towards a settlement of antitrust charges: most importantly, of the allegation that Google intentionally demoted rivals’ links in its search engine results. The Commission opened its investigation in November 2010, and the settlement is coming after 38 months – 60% longer than usual. The delay is likely down to the high degree of disagreement around potential remedies. Google has already submitted three proposals to the Commission. The first attempts were made in July 2012 and even now complainants are strongly critical of the proposed measures: the problem is deep and the remedies are just cosmetic, they say.

The Google case is atypical in the length of time it has taken, but in terms of the outcome is very much in line with the direction European Union antitrust enforcement is taking. Since the start of the mandate of EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia, only one out of 11 decisions on cases of suspected abuse of market power has resulted in a formal sanction. In all the others, the companies and the Commission reached an agreement: the Commission would drop the allegations in exchange for commitments from the companies to implement measures to dispel the Commission’s concerns. The terms are no fine and no admission of wrongdoing by the company. No detailed information on the nature of the Commission’s concerns would be publicly released.

The dropping of formal sanctions is the price the Commission seems to be willing to pay to bring the market back to ‘business as usual’ as quickly as possible. Consumers can be significantly affected by the abuse, paying higher prices or experiencing lower product quality. If the implementation of remedies is delayed, the product might even no longer exist when the abuse is stopped and the company heavily punished. Between a dead lion and a living dog, the Commission no doubt opts for the latter: the Commission prefers commitments from companies over lengthy sanction processes, particularly in sectors characterised by short product lifecycles and rapid evolution of supply and demand, such as digital good markets.

Another key benefit of commitment decisions is that the Commission can shape the remedies. When a prohibition decision is taken and a company is formally sanctioned, remedies are not tested in the market. The Commission has a greater chance to get it right and impose the right corrective measures when collecting feedback on the remedy proposals during a settlement procedure. In addition, negotiated remedies can sometimes even go beyond what is strictly necessary to stop the abuse. In the past, the Commission agreed with companies on remedies that would pull down entry barriers markets. This happened in the E.ON. energy cases, for example.

But the price paid for commitment decisions may sometimes be higher than expected, particularly for markets and consumers.

When settling, the Commission loses the opportunity to establish a robust legal precedent and effectively deter future bad behaviour. The company is not truly punished. Any extra profits arising from the abuse can be retained, and the likelihood that third parties will bring actions for damages is very low. Commitment decisions do not offer any basis for follow-on claims from victims of the abuse.

Most importantly, commitment decisions are rarely challenged in the EU courts. When they are, claimants have to face another long and costly proceeding and a highly uncertain outcome. Claimants do not have access to the Commission’s investigation file and can find it hard to assess their chances of success. The ultimate effect is that, when commitment decisions are taken, the Commission has a lower incentive to construct a case that will stand up in court. The detail reported in commitment decisions is indeed much less than with prohibitions. The average commitment decision is 21 pages long, few of which are dedicated to the ‘practices raising concerns’. Prohibition decisions are on average 160 pages long, with the concerns of the Commission fully explained and substantiated by the evidence collected during the investigation. When Intel was compelled to pay a fine of €1.33 billion, the Commission published a 518 page decision.

With Google, the chance that the decision would be challenged in court is greater than normal. Nevertheless, everybody will gain if the Commission would release a more detailed commitment decision than usual, describing fully its preliminary objections to Google’s behaviour. Complainants and consumers could judge whether the Commission’s case was strong enough and perhaps demand even stronger remedies. In that case, they might be tempted to opt for judicial review. Conversely, if it becomes clear that the remedies are appropriate, there would be no need to appeal the decision – and create another three years of uncertainty.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Find my virus: Mobilising AI and big data to fight COVID-19

At this event, the panellists will discuss the role of AI and big data in the fight against the coronavirus crisis.

Speakers: J. Scott Marcus, Alex Sandy Pentland, Georgios Petropoulos and Marietje Schaake Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 2, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Apr
8
14:00

Developing a mobile operating system in Europe - an unexpected opportunity for the EU?

Walking the wire: we discuss risks and benefits involved for the EU should it embark on developing a new smartphone operating system.

Speakers: J. Scott Marcus, Renato Nazzini and Andreas Zimmer Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

POSTPONED: Banking on Digital: a conversation with Ana Botin, Executive chairman of Santander Group

This event will feature a conversation between Anna Botin and Guntram Wolff on the future of the European Banking sector in face of the digital revolution.

Speakers: Ana Botin and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 25, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Artificial intelligence in the fight against COVID-19

Artificial intelligence can help fight the coronavirus through applications including population screening, notifications of when to seek medical help and tracking how infection spreads. The COVID-19 outbreak has triggered intense work on such applications, but it will take time before results become visible.

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 23, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Big data versus COVID-19: opportunities and privacy challenges

All available resources need to be brought to bear on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. To what extent can digital technology help? What risks are there in using big data to combat COVID-19, and what policies can mitigate any limitations that these risks impose?

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 23, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Braver, Greener Fairer: European Industrial Policy in times of coronavirus

At this livestream event by Bruegel and the FT Brussels Briefing we were joined by Thierry Breton to discuss the the challenges posed to Europe's Industrial Policy by COVID-19. This event is ONLINE ONLY

Speakers: Thierry Breton, Sam Fleming and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 19, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

ONLINE ROUND TABLE: Future of the EU-UK science cooperation

How do we rebuild and keep the science cooperation between the EU and the UK?

Speakers: Michael Leigh and Beth Thompson Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 17, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

CANCELLED: The American AI Initiative: A conversation with Michael Kratsios, Chief Technology Officer of the United States

Part of our executive leadership series, Michael Kratsios, Chief Technology Officer of the United States, will discuss the American AI initiative with Bruegel's Director Guntram Wolff.

Speakers: Michael Kratsios and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 16, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Global competition and digital change: How should we update European competition policy?

The event addressed the need for modernising European competition policy due to structural changes in the economy caused by shifting global economic landscapes on the one hand and ongoing digitisation of the economy on the other.

Speakers: Adina Claici, Alicia García-Herrero, Kay Jebelli, Kai-Uwe Kühn, Guillaume Loriot, Georgios Petropoulos, Luisa Santos, Christof Schoser, Maarten Smit, Philipp Steinberg, Achim Wambach and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 9, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe may be the world’s AI referee, but referees don’t win

The EU needs to invest in homegrown technology.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 19, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe Needs a DARPA

Germany needs an industrial revival of the sort it experienced in the late nineteenth century, but this will be possible only if the state offers technological backing to German companies. The US government’s successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency should serve as a model.

By: Dalia Marin Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 14, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

The EU's plan to catch up on artificial intelligence

While the US and China have been setting the pace when it comes to Artificial Intelligence, the European Union seems to be lagging behind. What are the Commission's plans to finally catch up? Will AI increase the gap between big and small companies? This week, Nicholas Barrett is joined by Julia Anderson and Guntram Wolff to discuss the EU's plan for AI.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 14, 2020
Load more posts