1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,720
Speaker 1: In June of this year, the European Commission imposed a

2
00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:05,720
Speaker 1: record fine of two point four billion euros on Google

3
00:00:05,760 --> 00:00:09,879
Speaker 1: for giving unfair advantage to its Comparison shopping service against

4
00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: other Internet shopping services. It also ordered Google to change

5
00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:16,919
Speaker 1: the way it displays shopping services in its searches. But

6
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:20,599
Speaker 1: in the wake of Intel's victory against the Commission in

7
00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:23,280
Speaker 1: Europe's High Court last week, Google has decided to appeal

8
00:00:23,320 --> 00:00:25,720
Speaker 1: the fine, setting up a court fight that could take

9
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:29,760
Speaker 1: years to resolve. Here to talk with us about Google's

10
00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:34,479
Speaker 1: appeal is Jennifer Ree, senior litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence.

11
00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:39,640
Speaker 1: Jennifer why is it that Google has decided, unlike a

12
00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:42,839
Speaker 1: lot of companies that have settled with the Commission, to

13
00:00:42,960 --> 00:00:47,040
Speaker 1: appeal this fine. Well, yeah, that's a good question, and

14
00:00:47,120 --> 00:00:49,680
Speaker 1: I guess that, you know, only Google really can say

15
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:52,720
Speaker 1: why they've decided to do this, though it seems with

16
00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 1: the Intel decision in a qualified sense, you know, that's

17
00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:00,520
Speaker 1: kind of good news, I think for Google, because what

18
00:01:00,600 --> 00:01:03,120
Speaker 1: it does is it sets up a court precedent in

19
00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:06,319
Speaker 1: Europe that where a theory of harm is based on

20
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:09,880
Speaker 1: foreclosure of competitors, which is the case in both Intels

21
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:13,760
Speaker 1: situation and in Google situation, that it can't just be

22
00:01:13,840 --> 00:01:17,480
Speaker 1: taken for granted that that foreclosure is anti competitive and

23
00:01:17,560 --> 00:01:20,840
Speaker 1: violates the laws, that an economic analysis needs to be

24
00:01:20,880 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 1: applied and all of the facts and circumstances need to

25
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:27,480
Speaker 1: be um evaluated to understand whether really that causes harm

26
00:01:27,560 --> 00:01:31,760
Speaker 1: to markets. Jen a court spokeswoman, said that Google has

27
00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:34,880
Speaker 1: not asked for an interim order to suspend the EU decision,

28
00:01:34,920 --> 00:01:38,679
Speaker 1: which means that without an injunction, it's still obligated to

29
00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:41,920
Speaker 1: pay the fine and comply with other elements of the

30
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: June ruling. Can you imagine why they decided not to

31
00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:49,320
Speaker 1: ask for an injunction? That is right, they will have

32
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:51,520
Speaker 1: to pay the fine and alter the way their shopping

33
00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:55,760
Speaker 1: services comparison shopping services are displayed. Um. I think it's

34
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 1: likely that they did not seek an injunction because that

35
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:01,880
Speaker 1: standard is very high and it's unlikely that they could

36
00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:03,400
Speaker 1: have met it. They would have had to show that

37
00:02:03,440 --> 00:02:06,520
Speaker 1: there is urgency and that they would have suffered irreparable

38
00:02:06,560 --> 00:02:09,440
Speaker 1: harm had they had to comply now, and they have

39
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:12,960
Speaker 1: to pay this fine which they can't afford, and changing

40
00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:15,480
Speaker 1: these shopping services, it just seems unlikely. They would have

41
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:17,480
Speaker 1: been able to prove in court that having to do

42
00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:20,040
Speaker 1: these things now, as they weighed out the appeal, would

43
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:24,280
Speaker 1: have caused urgent and irreparable harm to their business. So, Jenny,

44
00:02:24,320 --> 00:02:27,280
Speaker 1: it's a it's the European court system, so it's not

45
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:30,040
Speaker 1: one all of us are as familiar with what what

46
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:34,120
Speaker 1: happens now? Uh? And and how can we expect this

47
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:37,120
Speaker 1: case to move along? Well, it will move along slowly,

48
00:02:37,600 --> 00:02:40,480
Speaker 1: that much we know. So they have appealed to the

49
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:43,480
Speaker 1: General Court that is sort of the lower court. Compared

50
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:45,040
Speaker 1: to the lower court here in the U S. It

51
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:48,840
Speaker 1: would be the first decision. And Um. In the Intel's case,

52
00:02:48,919 --> 00:02:51,360
Speaker 1: they had a negative decision from the lower court. In

53
00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:54,640
Speaker 1: other words, that court upheld the European Commission's assessment and

54
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:57,040
Speaker 1: then they appealed to the European Court of Justice. So

55
00:02:57,120 --> 00:02:59,320
Speaker 1: that would be like our appellate court. And this is

56
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:02,280
Speaker 1: the court and tells case that that that sent it

57
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:05,320
Speaker 1: back and said this needs more evaluation. Um, so we'll

58
00:03:05,320 --> 00:03:08,519
Speaker 1: now wait for the General Court decision. And it could

59
00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,480
Speaker 1: uphold what the European Commission has done here with respect

60
00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:15,480
Speaker 1: to requiring a fine endo conduct remedy or it or

61
00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:18,320
Speaker 1: it could say that this needs to be reevaluated, or

62
00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:21,680
Speaker 1: reverse things, or even lower the fine. Last week, EU

63
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:25,280
Speaker 1: official said the plan that Google recently filed to comply

64
00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: with the European regulations appeared to be a step in

65
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:32,519
Speaker 1: the right direction. So Google is moving forward, changing according

66
00:03:32,600 --> 00:03:36,960
Speaker 1: to what the European Commission said, and still fighting at

67
00:03:36,960 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: the same time. So if it wins, it'll just be

68
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: able to go back to what it did before. Will

69
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 1: that be too much of a upheaval? Well, I think,

70
00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:49,080
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's a lot. We're talking way

71
00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:51,560
Speaker 1: down the road into a lot of speculation, and frankly,

72
00:03:51,640 --> 00:03:55,120
Speaker 1: technology moves so quickly. These worlds move so quickly. Things

73
00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:59,560
Speaker 1: could be so different by the time this decision comes out. Um,

74
00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:01,839
Speaker 1: they have on ahead because they will be fined quite

75
00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:04,000
Speaker 1: a lot if they don't make that change to the

76
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:07,000
Speaker 1: way they display their shopping services. So I think that's

77
00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 1: probably part of the reason they've gone ahead, and also

78
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:12,360
Speaker 1: because they haven't sought an injunction. Well, Jenn, let's take

79
00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:14,840
Speaker 1: a little bit more into what we don't know exactly

80
00:04:14,840 --> 00:04:17,479
Speaker 1: what they're going to end up arguing. And you know,

81
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:19,840
Speaker 1: only really Google knows its reasoning, as you said before,

82
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:23,359
Speaker 1: But when you look at the way the European Commission

83
00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:27,000
Speaker 1: looks at anti trust cases, what do you think they

84
00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:30,279
Speaker 1: might be arguing when they get when they challenge this, Well,

85
00:04:30,320 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 1: I think they could be arguing a few things. First,

86
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:35,480
Speaker 1: that if you look at the totality of the circumstances,

87
00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:39,040
Speaker 1: that what they're doing here is ultimately pro competitive or

88
00:04:39,080 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 1: beneficial or or simply doesn't amount to a harm to

89
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:47,320
Speaker 1: the market that violates the European rules for abuse of dominance.

90
00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:50,200
Speaker 1: That could be one thing, um, you know. Another could

91
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:55,560
Speaker 1: be that that as a vertically integrated company that they

92
00:04:55,640 --> 00:04:58,320
Speaker 1: don't where where they have the search and they have

93
00:04:58,360 --> 00:05:01,719
Speaker 1: also the comparison shopping service, says that they don't necessarily

94
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:04,960
Speaker 1: have an obligation to work with their competitors, that they

95
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:09,159
Speaker 1: haven't excluded their competitors completely, the competitors have access and

96
00:05:09,240 --> 00:05:11,520
Speaker 1: are listed in the Google search results, and that it's

97
00:05:11,560 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 1: not necessarily harmful for um Google to be giving favorability

98
00:05:16,600 --> 00:05:22,039
Speaker 1: to its own products. It's it's it seems sort of.

99
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 1: I don't know if Europe is used to having these

100
00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:29,360
Speaker 1: huge fines and then appeals by these companies that take

101
00:05:29,600 --> 00:05:33,760
Speaker 1: forever because these you know, the European companies haven't appealed

102
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:36,719
Speaker 1: as much. Well, you know, first, I think we have

103
00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:39,040
Speaker 1: to remember that these huge fines are kind of far

104
00:05:39,120 --> 00:05:42,000
Speaker 1: and few between. There have been some really huge fines,

105
00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:45,359
Speaker 1: but the biggest ones, um, since this Google find was

106
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:48,119
Speaker 1: Intel and that was back in two thousand nine, so

107
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:51,520
Speaker 1: and that was appealed. Other finds haven't been appealed in

108
00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:54,320
Speaker 1: the past, but they really are are sort of foreign,

109
00:05:54,320 --> 00:05:56,279
Speaker 1: few between. There's not a lot of record to go

110
00:05:56,400 --> 00:05:59,400
Speaker 1: on here. Well, Jenna, just about thirty seconds. Do you

111
00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 1: think that, um, you know a lot of American companies

112
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:04,800
Speaker 1: have been critical of the UU. Do you think that

113
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:08,279
Speaker 1: this might start a trend of American companies with this

114
00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:12,200
Speaker 1: and Intel fighting back against the EU? You know, it

115
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:15,359
Speaker 1: certainly could be. It certainly could be some push to

116
00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:18,599
Speaker 1: try to see if through these appeals, the courts in

117
00:06:18,640 --> 00:06:21,200
Speaker 1: the Europe come out with decisions that are aligned a

118
00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:24,720
Speaker 1: bit more with your with the US approach to antitrust,

119
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:27,240
Speaker 1: which is in this case and these abusive dominance cases

120
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,560
Speaker 1: is actually quite different. Well, our thanks to Jennifer Ree

121
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:33,160
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Intelligence for being with us today on Bloomberg

122
00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:33,440
Speaker 1: Law