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

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring