U.S. antitrust agencies divide jurisdiction over Big Tech and single out Google for investigation

Last year, I wrote about how the United States considers boarding the tech regulation train that has been racing through Europe. It seems that they have now taken another decisive step in that direction: the U.S. antitrust agencies have agreed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will oversee investigations of Google and Apple, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for antitrust oversight of Facebook and Amazon. And the division of competences was not simply symbolic—reportedly, the  DOJ is already preparing an antitrust investigation into Google’s search practices. Of course, this is not the first investigation into Google; indeed, it is not even the first such investigation in the U.S. This blog post therefore looks at the newest Google probe in an international and historical perspective.

The FTC’s Google settlement

In 2011, the FTC started a wide-ranging investigation into alleged anticompetitive conduct by Google. Two years later, however, the FTC concluded a settlement with Google regarding a rather limited amount of practices. In particular, Google agreed:

(a) to live up to its commitments to license its standard essential patents—which are needed to make various wireless devices—on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms;

(b) to give online advertisers more flexibility to simultaneously manage advertising campaigns on Google’s AdWords platform and on rival advertising platforms; and

(c) to refrain from misappropriating online content, such as user reviews and star ratings, from specialized search engines (‘verticals’ such as Yelp and Amazon) in order to improve its own vertical offerings (such as Google Local and Google Shopping).

As the FTC did not bring a lawsuit, the settlement was widely seen as a victory for Google (although not everyone agrees with this view). In particular, the settlement contained no provision on ‘search bias’: Google’s alleged manipulation of its search algorithm to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing verticals (again, think Google Shopping). One facilitating factor for such bias was Google’s introduction of ‘Universal Search’, a redesign of the search engine that prominently displays Google properties in response to specific categories of searches. However, ‘the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google’s search algorithms – even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors – could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google’s product and the experience of its users.’ In other words, the demotion of rivals was considered a feature, not a bug.

Thus, the five FTC commissioners unanimously voted to close the investigation into Google’s search-related practices. And that was the end of it—at least for a while. In 2015, part of an FTC staff report on the investigation was inadvertently released to The Wall Street Journal. In the report, FTC staffers set out a much harsher analysis of Google’s anticompetitive conduct and recommend bringing a lawsuit regarding the three practices described above. On the issue of search bias, however, the staffers advised against bringing a lawsuit (in what they termed ‘a close call’). The staffers did conclude that Google ‘adopted a strategy of demoting, or refusing to display, links to certain vertical websites in highly commercial categories’ but advised against a complaint because of legal hurdles and the ‘strong procompetitive justifications’ offered by Google.

The European Commission’s Google decision(s)

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission (EC) took a more aggressive stance on Google’s practices. It started an investigation in 2010 and has at present—nine years later—issues three decisions, imposing a cumulative fine of €8,25 billion. The first decision concerned Google’s search practices (‘search bias’, in the words of the FTC). The second decision related to the way in which Google used its Android mobile operating system to cement its dominance in search (see my CoRe blog post on the decision). The final, third decision condemned Google for abusive practices in online advertising.

The EC decision on Google’s search practices remains the most controversial one due to, amongst others, the novelty of the conduct and the fact that the FTC considered them efficient rather than anticompetitive. The EC, by contrast, concluded that ‘Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service’ while ‘demot[ing] rival comparison shopping services in its search results’. This conduct is said to have ‘stifled competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets, depriving European consumers of genuine choice and innovation’. According to the EC, Google’s search practices were a bug after all—not the feature that the FTC observed.

The DOJ’s Google investigation

Over the past few years, the tide has been turning against big tech in the U.S. Last year, for example, a poll found that 55% of Americans are concerned that the government won’t do enough to regulate how US tech companies operate—an increase of 15% compared to only six months before. And politicians are listening. Most Democratic presidential candidates have called for more scrutiny of big tech, while lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee have united for an investigation into the market dominance of big tech.

Now, it appears that the antitrust agencies—the FTC and the DOJ—are also seeing cause for concern. They have neatly divided jurisdiction over the Big Four tech companies (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, or ‘GAFA’). According to various sources, the DOJ is already making use of its newfound jurisdiction to lay the groundwork for an investigation into Google. The focus of the DOJ’s probe is not yet clear, but it would not be surprising if Google’s practices in search—were it holds a significant market share—receive the bulk of the attention.

The DOJ is already receiving input from all sides—unasked in most cases, and probably unwanted in many. Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, who supports a break-up of GAFA, immediately called on Makan Delrahim—the head of the DOJ’s antitrust division—to recuse himself from the investigation given that he lobbied for Google before. Trump has also weighed in, stating that ‘obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly’. He added that the EC is attacking U.S. companies, but is inspired rather than appalled: ‘we should be doing what they are doing’. Perhaps more helpfully, a series of businesses—from small to large—are lining up to voice their grievances to the DOJ.

The agency certainly has a daunting task ahead of it.



Friso Bostoen

Blog Editor

Ph.D. Researcher and Teaching Assistant, KU Leuven

>> Friso’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Zusammenhängende Posts

12. Okt 2020
Features von Alexandr Svetlicinii

Two hats on one head: Competition authorities and FDI screening

The Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union (EU FDI Screening Regulation) was adopted on 19 March 2019 and became fully operational on 11 October 2020. Its adoption was preceded by the heated discussion on the need to reform the EU merger control framework, which according to some stakeholders, should be able […]
22. Sep 2020
Features von Daniel Mandrescu
Epic, Fortnite, Apple, battle royale, competition law, antitrust, district court, monopolization, monopoly, essential facilities, refusal to supply, tying, abuse of dominance

Epic v Apple (2): market power and foreclosure in the app distribution market(s)

Epic’s battle against Apple has been extensively covered in media in the past month. This attention is undoubtedly due to Epic’s explicit move against Apple’s terms and conditions as well as Apple’s fierce reaction to cut all ties with Epic. Epic’s legal dispute is, however, not only against Apple but also against Google who has removed Epic from its Play […]
04. Sep 2020
Features von Friso Bostoen
Epic, Fortnite, Apple, battle royale, competition law, antitrust, district court, monopolization, monopoly, essential facilities, refusal to supply, tying, abuse of dominance

Epic v Apple (1): introducing antitrust’s latest Big Tech battle royale

Mid-August 2020, a series of events unfolded in a short period of time. They may prove a watershed moment for the role of antitrust in regulating digital markets. It started when gamers playing Fortnite on their iPhone were suddenly faced with a new choice screen when buying in-app currency: What changed is that Epic, the developer of Fortnite, introduced an […]
09. Jun 2020
Features von Alice Rinaldi
Mobile apps image

Re-imagining the Abuse of Economic Dependence in a Digital World

As proven by the recent consultation on the Digital Services Act, the European Union is actively pursuing new solutions to cope with the challenges posed by digitalization. This post proposes a new approach to conducts taking place in the context of online commercial relationships, such as refusals to access platforms or datasets. Namely, it suggests that the European legislator should […]
28. Mai 2020
Features von Marios Iacovides
corona virus

Covid-19 and the transformative power of State Aid: a framework for a democratically legitimate recovery

By Julian Nowag and Marios Iacovides The coronavirus pandemic has led to major shocks to the global economy and the EU Member States, with hardly any State spared. The European Commission estimates that the EU economy will contract by 7.5 % in 2020. Unemployment is forecast to rise from 6.7% in 2019 to 9% in 2020. Within this context, the […]
19. Mai 2020
Features von Virgilio Pereira
Amazon logo

Amazon/Deliveroo: Dynamic Counterfactual Analysis and the Failing-Firm Defence

The economic and financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic foreshadows an increase in the number of deals where the so-called “failing-firm defence” (“FFD”) might come under discussion, as recently demonstrated by the provisional clearance of Amazon’s investment in Deliveroo by the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”). This blogpost addresses the interplay between the FFD and dynamic counterfactual analysis, in light of the […]
23. Apr 2020
Features von Friso Bostoen

Venture capital and antitrust: on exit strategies, killer acquisitions, and innovation harms

Venture capital (VC) is the primary source of financing for early-stage startups bringing their innovation to market. And a disproportionate amount of venture capital goes to startups in the tech sector. However, the last few years have seen a contraction in VC investment, particularly in potential competitors to incumbent digital platforms such as Facebook, Google and Amazon, which some interpret as […]
06. Apr 2020
Features von Rita Paukste

EURIBOR Cartel: Features of Collusion and Detection of Cartel

A colleague of mine (kudos for you know who you are) once told me that in his competition law class he has a part called “how to make a good cartel?” A thought-provoking academic exercise in many aspects, indeed. When analyzing cartels in the financial sector this popped in mind to raise other questions – how participants in cartels in […]
04. Feb 2020
Features von Liesbet Van Acker

The Intermarché-Coca Cola dispute: Who’s the bad guy? An analysis of the retail distributor-supplier relationship

If you want to buy Coca Cola products in the supermarket Intermarché in France, you will arrive home empty-handed. Since the end of December, Coca Cola has refused to refill Intermarché’s stock, following a conflict about Intermarché’s unwillingness to sell the whole assortment of Coca Cola’s products. In the summer, Intermarché communicated to Coca Cola that it would like to […]
23. Jan 2020
Features von Friso Bostoen

The antitrust books you should’ve read in 2019 [part 2]

In a CoRe Blog post earlier this month, I introduced the first three ‘antitrust books you should’ve read in 2019’. In this post, I take a look at the next and final three books. Completing the list involved a tiny bit of cheating (including a book that was published in 2018 and another one that doesn’t strictly concern antitrust), but I guarantee that none […]

Nutzen Sie unseren Newsletter, um sich regelmäßig über Konferenzen, Workshops, Trainings und die  neuesten Ausgaben unserer Fachzeitschriften u.a. aus den Bereichen des europäischen Wettbewerbs- und Vergaberechte, Datenschutzrechte, Abfallrecht, Umwelt- und Planungsrecht sowie Chemikalien- und Pharmarecht zu informieren.

Verpassen Sie keine Events und Publikationen. Neuigkeiten abonnieren