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 >>

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

21. Sep 2021
Features by Alice Rinaldi

Spielberg’s antitrust: Netflix, Amazon and the Draft Digital Markets Act

The recent legislative reform proposals presented by the European Commission (“EC”) have revived the debate on how Competition Law should deal with potentially abusive conduct in digital markets. Drawing upon the case law concerning violations of Art. 102 TFEU, the draft Digital Markets Act (“Draft DMA”) tries to re-design the structure of digital markets by codifying a series of dos […]
07. Sep 2021
Features by Friso Bostoen
Book cover

A Different View of Platform Regulation: Reviewing Josh Hawley’s ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’

The United States is quickly catching up with the European Union when it comes to tech regulation. The latest example is the proposed Open App Markets Act. While the bill’s provisions deserve discussion, one feature stands out: that it is was introduced by senators from both major parties. While Democrats and Republicans are not known for agreeing on much, the […]
19. Apr 2021
Features by Friso Bostoen
Article 22, Merger Regulation, European Commission, Guidance, killer acquisitions, GAFAM

The Commission’s Article 22 EUMR Guidance: catching killer acquisitions through the merger referral procedure?

Over the past five years, the EU’s merger control regime has been hotly debated. The main concern driving the debate has been the intensive acquisition activity in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. However, many of those acquisitions escape the jurisdictional thresholds of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) and therefore cannot be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). On 26 March […]
06. Apr 2021
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
competition law, art. 102 tfeu, online platforms, data sharing, refusal to supply

Online platforms and the essential facility doctrine – a status update following Slovak Telekom and the DMA

The recent judgment of the CJEU in Slovak Telekom provides important guidance on the application of the Bronner case law in cases concerning abusive market access obstacles. Such guidance is of particular value in the context of online platforms, where issues of access have been considered being unsolvable because of the stringent criteria of the refusal to supply case law. […]
09. Dec 2020
Features by Martyn Dobbin
Algorithmic Code

Pricing algorithms and competition: what competitive concerns do pricing algorithms raise?

Introduction Through Big Data and increasing digitalisation of commerce, algorithmic pricing (AP) has become a staple of markets globally. While this increased prevalence has produced a multitude of procompetitive market outcomes – for example, increased supply-side and demand-side efficiencies – there exists palpable academic and administrative concern that AP may greater facilitate the emergence of collusion in digital markets. In […]
03. Dec 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu

Why you (often) don’t need the essential facility doctrine in the digital economy? – Interpreting Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom

The insights from Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom may have serious implications for the application of the Oscar Bronner case law in the future. These insights may prove, however, to have the most value in the digital economy where it would appear that the essential facility doctrine might often not even be needed – not even in the case of […]
26. Nov 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu

Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telecom – Implications for the Essential Facility Doctrine

The recent cases of Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom address the matter of refusal to deal. Both cases, which do not engage in the assessment of this abuse, in fact, provide important guidance on the scope of application of the essential facility doctrine for current practice that will be covered in this post. Refusals to deal and the essential facility […]
12. Oct 2020
Features by 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 by 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 by 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 […]

If you are interested, please use our Newletter to stay informed about our upcoming conferences, workshops, trainings and current published journals in our core areas of EU competition, data protection, substances and environmental law, as well as exciting new projects in emerging technologies and digitalisation.

Don’t miss any news and sign up for our free news alert.  Sign up now