Short Reads

Google gets a record EUR 2.42 billion antitrust fine for its shopping service

Google gets a record EUR 2.42 billion antitrust fine for its shopping

Google gets a record EUR 2.42 billion antitrust fine for its shopping service

03.07.2017

On 27 June 2017, the European Commission announced its decision to fine Google EUR 2.42 billion for abusing its dominant position by illegally favouring its own comparison shopping service in its search results. The fine follows a seven-year investigation and unsuccessful commitment negotiations and is the largest ever imposed on a single company by the Commission. Failure to remedy the allegedly anti-competitive conduct within 90 days could lead to additional fines of up to 5% of Google's average daily worldwide turnover for each day of non-compliance.

Google launched its own comparison shopping service in 2004, initially called Froogle and ultimately renamed Google Shopping. The Commission alleges that, following years of relatively poor market performance, from 2008 onwards Google started to systematically favour its own service when a consumer used the Google search engine to look for products.

Internet search and comparison shopping service: multi-sided markets

The Commission contends that Google abused its dominant position in general internet search by stifling competition in a separate, associated market for comparison shopping services. Both products, search engines and comparison shopping services, form part of multi-sided markets. In these markets, while the product is free to users, the commercial operators' revenues depend to a large extent on online advertisements. In addition, an essential feature of multi-sided markets is the existence of network effects as the more attractive the product is to users, the more valuable the product becomes for advertisers and the more revenue the operator of the product generates, which can subsequently be used to attract more users.

Dominant position in the market for internet search

The starting point of the Commission's assessment is that, during the relevant period, Google was dominant in each relevant national market for general internet search throughout the EEA. Its share of internet searches exceeded 90% in most EEA countries. In addition, the Commission noted that there are high barriers to entry in part due to network effects described above.

Google's abusive practices

The Commission concluded that Google had (i) systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service (typically at or near the top of the search results), whilst (ii) demoting search results of competing comparison shopping services (through its search algorithms), making them less visible for consumers.

This had the effect that Google's comparison shopping service made significant gains in traffic to the detriment of its competitors, depriving consumers of their choice to buy and compare products online and competitors of their necessary access to customers.

A heated debate to come

Although the decision has not yet been published, it is clear that the Commission's reasoning will spark huge debate. Likely topics of controversy include the competitive pressure stemming from merchant platforms, such as Amazon and eBay, to which customers can directly navigate, whether competitors' loss of traffic is truly due to the prominent placement that is given to Google's comparison shopping service and the degree to which any anticompetitive effects outweigh the – in itself – procompetitive conduct on the market where Google is dominant.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Recent European Commission merger decisions signal an increased focus on innovation
  2. ACM fines Dutch rail operator (NS) for an alleged abuse of dominance
  3. New Belgian Act on damage claims for competition law infringements

Team

Related news

09.01.2020 NL law
Deleting WhatsApp chats during dawn raids may cost you dearly

Short Reads - Companies should be aware that the Dutch competition authority (ACM) will not only examine electronic records and emails, but can also check WhatsApp messages during dawn raids. The ACM recently imposed a fine of EUR 1.84 million on a company for non-cooperation with a dawn raid; its highest fine so far for non-cooperation. Several of the company’s employees had left WhatsApp groups and deleted chats before handing over their mobile phones for inspection.

Read more

16.01.2020 NL law
De Amsterdamse milieuzone voor brom- en snorfietsen: voertuigen van een bepaald jaar weren is mogelijk bij ontbreken van een redelijk alternatief

Short Reads - ABRvS 20 november 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:3865 Deze blog is het vierde deel in een reeks Stibbeblogs over gemeentelijke milieuzones. In 2017 oordeelde de Afdeling over de milieuzone voor personen- en bestelauto’s met dieselmotoren in Utrecht. In 2018 presenteerde de staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat haar beleid voor harmonisatie van uiteenlopende gemeentelijke milieuzones. Een jaar geleden maakten wij in een FAQ de balans op over de harmonisatie van milieuzones.

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures: too little too late?

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM’s and European Commission’s approach to access to the file are not aligned. According to an interim relief judge, the ACM cannot be forced to grant a company access to a broader set of documents in competition procedures. A potential error in the administrative procedure can be remedied before a court at a later stage. This is different to the right to access to the Commission’s file during administrative procedures, as acknowledged in EU case law.

Read more

10.01.2020 NL law
Is het mededingingsrecht de reddingsboei van zwakke zzp’ers?

Articles - Het toenemende aantal zzp'ers heeft ook mededingingsrechtelijke gevolgen. Volgens de ACM werkt de markt namelijk niet goed als zzp'ers door lage uurtarieven onder het bestaansminimum komen. Jan Truijens Martinez en Simone Evans bespreken in het Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsrecht in Context hoe eventuele belemmeringen die het mededingingsrecht opwerpt bij de bescherming van zzp'ers kunnen worden beperkt en of het mededingingsrecht eigenlijk wel het juiste instrument daarvoor is? 

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Competition rules and globalisation to face off in 2020

Short Reads - 2020 will likely revolve around the question whether competition rules should yield to globalisation and digitisation, with suggestions ranging from mere tweaks to competition rules to complementary regulation. Greater cooperation across data protection, consumer protection and competition law appears inevitable. Speedier solutions in more informal settings may become a reality, alongside more frequent use of behavioural remedies.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring