WEBVTT - Google Faces Record EU Antitrust Fine (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.880
<v Speaker 1>The European Union has been investigating antitrust allegations against Google

0:00:03.920 --> 0:00:06.680
<v Speaker 1>for seven years, and last week it levied a two

0:00:06.720 --> 0:00:09.920
<v Speaker 1>point seven billion euro fine against the company, finding the

0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:13.000
<v Speaker 1>Google abuses its power as the world's biggest search engine

0:00:13.000 --> 0:00:17.599
<v Speaker 1>to disadvantage smaller shopping search services. Google disagrees with the

0:00:17.640 --> 0:00:20.800
<v Speaker 1>decision and may appeal but decision, but the decision might

0:00:20.880 --> 0:00:24.520
<v Speaker 1>set a precedent for additional EU investigations of Google's Android

0:00:24.560 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>mobile phone software and online advertising service, which are currently ongoing.

0:00:29.760 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Here to talk with us about the ruling by the

0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:36.080
<v Speaker 1>European Union are Spencer Waller, professor at Loyola University Chicago

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:38.920
<v Speaker 1>School of Law, and ambling On Slin, a partner in

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:42.559
<v Speaker 1>the Paris office of Simmons and Simmons. I'm bling, can

0:00:42.600 --> 0:00:47.000
<v Speaker 1>you explain what the EU found here in finding Google

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:52.520
<v Speaker 1>this very large amount of money? Well, the new Commission

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:55.880
<v Speaker 1>of find that by a leveraging on its very big

0:00:55.920 --> 0:01:00.640
<v Speaker 1>market share on the search search market, to being able

0:01:00.760 --> 0:01:06.679
<v Speaker 1>to put forward into favor uh their shopping services, to

0:01:06.680 --> 0:01:12.399
<v Speaker 1>to provide prominent policeman for their shopping comparison sites and services,

0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 1>so by favoring their own services. To the judgment of

0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:19.920
<v Speaker 1>the arrivals. They would have abuse. They have abused their

0:01:20.000 --> 0:01:24.880
<v Speaker 1>dominant position. Spencer. It's Google search engine. Is it allowed

0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:28.640
<v Speaker 1>to take advantage of its innovations and give any preference

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 1>to its own services according to the EU? Well, Um,

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:35.319
<v Speaker 1>you get a different answer under the U S and

0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:38.880
<v Speaker 1>the EU antitrust laws. And in the US, the FTC

0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:43.160
<v Speaker 1>did not take action on the core allegation of favoring

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Google zonn Um shopping services versus its rivals, and it

0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:51.760
<v Speaker 1>took minor action on other issues. The EU squarely addressed

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 1>the favoritism issue. It was the core part of this

0:01:55.520 --> 0:01:58.160
<v Speaker 1>decision and in addition to the large whopping fine that

0:01:58.240 --> 0:02:02.040
<v Speaker 1>Michael talked about, um, the order is probably the most

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:05.400
<v Speaker 1>complex part is going to require Google to stop its

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:10.120
<v Speaker 1>egal practices and respect what the EU called simple principle

0:02:10.200 --> 0:02:12.960
<v Speaker 1>of equal treatment. And it's consistent with the EU law,

0:02:13.080 --> 0:02:16.320
<v Speaker 1>but it's not that simple. I'm blame. What might Google

0:02:16.400 --> 0:02:20.120
<v Speaker 1>do here in order to comply going forward with the

0:02:21.160 --> 0:02:23.880
<v Speaker 1>with the e use ruling, because the penalties could be

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 1>it could be ongoing if if Google doesn't comply with

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:31.760
<v Speaker 1>the ruling. Yeah, exactly, And that's the tricky part of

0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 1>the of the ruling because the injunction given to two

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.560
<v Speaker 1>Google seems simple and and pretty straightforward, but it might

0:02:37.600 --> 0:02:41.280
<v Speaker 1>be very complex for for Google to comply with the

0:02:41.320 --> 0:02:44.280
<v Speaker 1>decision of the of the Commission. Actually, the commission or

0:02:44.280 --> 0:02:47.400
<v Speaker 1>considers that Google knows its products and services better than

0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 1>the Commission and that they should have room for maneuver

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:53.800
<v Speaker 1>to implement the measures to be taken to to ensure

0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:57.360
<v Speaker 1>equal treatments. But this seems to be a poison gift

0:02:57.440 --> 0:02:59.840
<v Speaker 1>to Google because it seems a bit strange that the

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Mission has not formed the view during these seven years

0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:06.760
<v Speaker 1>of investigation. But what would be an appropriate remedy? Google

0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:11.760
<v Speaker 1>had already proposed many times commitments three times UH commitments

0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:15.240
<v Speaker 1>which were market tested and rejected in the end, but

0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 1>that was the first step in and trying to to

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:23.520
<v Speaker 1>build an appropriate commitments. We can remember that in two

0:03:23.560 --> 0:03:27.960
<v Speaker 1>thousands Sucheen, Google offered to display links to three rivals

0:03:27.960 --> 0:03:31.239
<v Speaker 1>spatialized such services close to its own services in the

0:03:31.320 --> 0:03:35.000
<v Speaker 1>place which is clearly visible to users, and these team

0:03:35.040 --> 0:03:37.720
<v Speaker 1>is pretty much close from what Google might have to

0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 1>propose now Spencer. Even if Google appeals, it will still

0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 1>under European laws have to change its business practices within

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:51.800
<v Speaker 1>ninety days. So what exactly doesn't do now or or

0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:56.520
<v Speaker 1>not even exactly just broadly, what is it do now? Well,

0:03:57.240 --> 0:03:58.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, I'm not a hundred percent sure they have

0:03:59.000 --> 0:04:00.880
<v Speaker 1>the right of appeal and is going to take some time.

0:04:00.920 --> 0:04:04.040
<v Speaker 1>There's two levels of appeal that that that can occur

0:04:04.080 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>in the EU system. What they have to do is

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:11.120
<v Speaker 1>satisfy the Commission that they're not preferring their own shopping

0:04:11.200 --> 0:04:17.599
<v Speaker 1>services over the rivals. And the commitments that we're rejected

0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:20.400
<v Speaker 1>in the past had to do with labeling the Google

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:24.599
<v Speaker 1>products more clearly, and that was not sufficient for the commission.

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:26.839
<v Speaker 1>And what they hint and we haven't seen the full decision.

0:04:26.839 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 1>We've just seen kind of the press release in some

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:31.800
<v Speaker 1>Q and A s um what what the decision hints

0:04:31.839 --> 0:04:34.200
<v Speaker 1>at is that the results have to be equal in

0:04:34.240 --> 0:04:38.240
<v Speaker 1>the sense that rival shopping services be displayed on the

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:42.000
<v Speaker 1>first page or in a similar place. If Google somehow

0:04:42.040 --> 0:04:45.240
<v Speaker 1>demotes its own shopping services. So it's possible in the

0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:47.839
<v Speaker 1>short term, while they're appealing or otherwise trying to work

0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:51.360
<v Speaker 1>this out, it's possible they will simply uh stop doing

0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:54.680
<v Speaker 1>uh their their shopping services on the front page or

0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:57.440
<v Speaker 1>at all in the EU markets. It doesn't. The injunction

0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:00.560
<v Speaker 1>doesn't affect anywhere outside the I think for eleven or

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.359
<v Speaker 1>thirteen countries in the EU where these services have been possible.

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:07.719
<v Speaker 1>So either they have to upgrade the way they display

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.400
<v Speaker 1>certain rival services, or they have to downgrade the way

0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:16.359
<v Speaker 1>they display their own comparison shopping. I'm blind. This case

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 1>is hardly the end of Google's issues with the European Union.

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:22.720
<v Speaker 1>There are a couple of other big investigations that the

0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:28.039
<v Speaker 1>EU has going on in regard to alleged anti competitive activity. Um,

0:05:28.080 --> 0:05:35.160
<v Speaker 1>how will this decision affect those investigations going forward? Well,

0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:38.440
<v Speaker 1>there are two other pending cases, one on the Android

0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:43.000
<v Speaker 1>occurring operating system and one on the absence program. Uh.

0:05:43.040 --> 0:05:46.240
<v Speaker 1>This seems to be to me to be two different cases.

0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:49.800
<v Speaker 1>The practices which are at stake are very different and

0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:53.320
<v Speaker 1>more classic. Actually, Uh, there is more to the Microsoft

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:56.039
<v Speaker 1>case and although classic, abuse of them in a position

0:05:56.200 --> 0:06:01.920
<v Speaker 1>with exclusivities imposed on partners or on customers. UM. So

0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:05.359
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure that the Commission can really leverage on

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:09.159
<v Speaker 1>the Shopping decision to to copy paste this decision to

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.520
<v Speaker 1>the two other pending cases, nor that the Commission could

0:06:12.560 --> 0:06:16.560
<v Speaker 1>also do the same by opening new proceedings on other

0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 1>vertical services that Google is operating concerning travels, restaurants, maps,

0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>et cetera. It would be new cases, but the signal

0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:31.240
<v Speaker 1>that the Commission is sending is very strong that they

0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:36.560
<v Speaker 1>are not prepared um to to let Google um let

0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:39.160
<v Speaker 1>their services like that. So either they commit and change

0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:42.680
<v Speaker 1>their practices or there will be investigations and potentially if

0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:46.040
<v Speaker 1>he find an intern, change to change to change. Well.

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:49.200
<v Speaker 1>Our thanks to Humbly Nonsland, a partner in the Paris

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.240
<v Speaker 1>office of Simmons and Simmons, and Spencer Waller, Professor at

0:06:52.279 --> 0:06:55.040
<v Speaker 1>Loyola University Chicago School of Love, for being here today