Speaker 1: The European Union has been investigating antitrust allegations against Google
Speaker 1: for seven years, and last week it levied a two
Speaker 1: point seven billion euro fine against the company, finding the
Speaker 1: Google abuses its power as the world's biggest search engine
Speaker 1: to disadvantage smaller shopping search services. Google disagrees with the
Speaker 1: decision and may appeal but decision, but the decision might
Speaker 1: set a precedent for additional EU investigations of Google's Android
Speaker 1: mobile phone software and online advertising service, which are currently ongoing.
Speaker 1: Here to talk with us about the ruling by the
Speaker 1: European Union are Spencer Waller, professor at Loyola University Chicago
Speaker 1: School of Law, and ambling On Slin, a partner in
Speaker 1: the Paris office of Simmons and Simmons. I'm bling, can
Speaker 1: you explain what the EU found here in finding Google
Speaker 1: this very large amount of money? Well, the new Commission
Speaker 1: of find that by a leveraging on its very big
Speaker 1: market share on the search search market, to being able
Speaker 1: to put forward into favor uh their shopping services, to
Speaker 1: to provide prominent policeman for their shopping comparison sites and services,
Speaker 1: so by favoring their own services. To the judgment of
Speaker 1: the arrivals. They would have abuse. They have abused their
Speaker 1: dominant position. Spencer. It's Google search engine. Is it allowed
Speaker 1: to take advantage of its innovations and give any preference
Speaker 1: to its own services according to the EU? Well, Um,
Speaker 1: you get a different answer under the U S and
Speaker 1: the EU antitrust laws. And in the US, the FTC
Speaker 1: did not take action on the core allegation of favoring
Speaker 1: Google zonn Um shopping services versus its rivals, and it
Speaker 1: took minor action on other issues. The EU squarely addressed
Speaker 1: the favoritism issue. It was the core part of this
Speaker 1: decision and in addition to the large whopping fine that
Speaker 1: Michael talked about, um, the order is probably the most
Speaker 1: complex part is going to require Google to stop its
Speaker 1: egal practices and respect what the EU called simple principle
Speaker 1: of equal treatment. And it's consistent with the EU law,
Speaker 1: but it's not that simple. I'm blame. What might Google
Speaker 1: do here in order to comply going forward with the
Speaker 1: with the e use ruling, because the penalties could be
Speaker 1: it could be ongoing if if Google doesn't comply with
Speaker 1: the ruling. Yeah, exactly, And that's the tricky part of
Speaker 1: the of the ruling because the injunction given to two
Speaker 1: Google seems simple and and pretty straightforward, but it might
Speaker 1: be very complex for for Google to comply with the
Speaker 1: decision of the of the Commission. Actually, the commission or
Speaker 1: considers that Google knows its products and services better than
Speaker 1: the Commission and that they should have room for maneuver
Speaker 1: to implement the measures to be taken to to ensure
Speaker 1: equal treatments. But this seems to be a poison gift
Speaker 1: to Google because it seems a bit strange that the
Speaker 1: Mission has not formed the view during these seven years
Speaker 1: of investigation. But what would be an appropriate remedy? Google
Speaker 1: had already proposed many times commitments three times UH commitments
Speaker 1: which were market tested and rejected in the end, but
Speaker 1: that was the first step in and trying to to
Speaker 1: build an appropriate commitments. We can remember that in two
Speaker 1: thousands Sucheen, Google offered to display links to three rivals
Speaker 1: spatialized such services close to its own services in the
Speaker 1: place which is clearly visible to users, and these team
Speaker 1: is pretty much close from what Google might have to
Speaker 1: propose now Spencer. Even if Google appeals, it will still
Speaker 1: under European laws have to change its business practices within
Speaker 1: ninety days. So what exactly doesn't do now or or
Speaker 1: not even exactly just broadly, what is it do now? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not a hundred percent sure they have
Speaker 1: the right of appeal and is going to take some time.
Speaker 1: There's two levels of appeal that that that can occur
Speaker 1: in the EU system. What they have to do is
Speaker 1: satisfy the Commission that they're not preferring their own shopping
Speaker 1: services over the rivals. And the commitments that we're rejected
Speaker 1: in the past had to do with labeling the Google
Speaker 1: products more clearly, and that was not sufficient for the commission.
Speaker 1: And what they hint and we haven't seen the full decision.
Speaker 1: We've just seen kind of the press release in some
Speaker 1: Q and A s um what what the decision hints
Speaker 1: at is that the results have to be equal in
Speaker 1: the sense that rival shopping services be displayed on the
Speaker 1: first page or in a similar place. If Google somehow
Speaker 1: demotes its own shopping services. So it's possible in the
Speaker 1: short term, while they're appealing or otherwise trying to work
Speaker 1: this out, it's possible they will simply uh stop doing
Speaker 1: uh their their shopping services on the front page or
Speaker 1: at all in the EU markets. It doesn't. The injunction
Speaker 1: doesn't affect anywhere outside the I think for eleven or
Speaker 1: thirteen countries in the EU where these services have been possible.
Speaker 1: So either they have to upgrade the way they display
Speaker 1: certain rival services, or they have to downgrade the way
Speaker 1: they display their own comparison shopping. I'm blind. This case
Speaker 1: is hardly the end of Google's issues with the European Union.
Speaker 1: There are a couple of other big investigations that the
Speaker 1: EU has going on in regard to alleged anti competitive activity. Um,
Speaker 1: how will this decision affect those investigations going forward? Well,
Speaker 1: there are two other pending cases, one on the Android
Speaker 1: occurring operating system and one on the absence program. Uh.
Speaker 1: This seems to be to me to be two different cases.
Speaker 1: The practices which are at stake are very different and
Speaker 1: more classic. Actually, Uh, there is more to the Microsoft
Speaker 1: case and although classic, abuse of them in a position
Speaker 1: with exclusivities imposed on partners or on customers. UM. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that the Commission can really leverage on
Speaker 1: the Shopping decision to to copy paste this decision to
Speaker 1: the two other pending cases, nor that the Commission could
Speaker 1: also do the same by opening new proceedings on other
Speaker 1: vertical services that Google is operating concerning travels, restaurants, maps,
Speaker 1: et cetera. It would be new cases, but the signal
Speaker 1: that the Commission is sending is very strong that they
Speaker 1: are not prepared um to to let Google um let
Speaker 1: their services like that. So either they commit and change
Speaker 1: their practices or there will be investigations and potentially if
Speaker 1: he find an intern, change to change to change. Well.
Speaker 1: Our thanks to Humbly Nonsland, a partner in the Paris
Speaker 1: office of Simmons and Simmons, and Spencer Waller, Professor at
Speaker 1: Loyola University Chicago School of Love, for being here today