Speaker 1: In June of this year, the European Commission imposed a
Speaker 1: record fine of two point four billion euros on Google
Speaker 1: for giving unfair advantage to its Comparison shopping service against
Speaker 1: other Internet shopping services. It also ordered Google to change
Speaker 1: the way it displays shopping services in its searches. But
Speaker 1: in the wake of Intel's victory against the Commission in
Speaker 1: Europe's High Court last week, Google has decided to appeal
Speaker 1: the fine, setting up a court fight that could take
Speaker 1: years to resolve. Here to talk with us about Google's
Speaker 1: appeal is Jennifer Ree, senior litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: Jennifer why is it that Google has decided, unlike a
Speaker 1: lot of companies that have settled with the Commission, to
Speaker 1: appeal this fine. Well, yeah, that's a good question, and
Speaker 1: I guess that, you know, only Google really can say
Speaker 1: why they've decided to do this, though it seems with
Speaker 1: the Intel decision in a qualified sense, you know, that's
Speaker 1: kind of good news, I think for Google, because what
Speaker 1: it does is it sets up a court precedent in
Speaker 1: Europe that where a theory of harm is based on
Speaker 1: foreclosure of competitors, which is the case in both Intels
Speaker 1: situation and in Google situation, that it can't just be
Speaker 1: taken for granted that that foreclosure is anti competitive and
Speaker 1: violates the laws, that an economic analysis needs to be
Speaker 1: applied and all of the facts and circumstances need to
Speaker 1: be um evaluated to understand whether really that causes harm
Speaker 1: to markets. Jen a court spokeswoman, said that Google has
Speaker 1: not asked for an interim order to suspend the EU decision,
Speaker 1: which means that without an injunction, it's still obligated to
Speaker 1: pay the fine and comply with other elements of the
Speaker 1: June ruling. Can you imagine why they decided not to
Speaker 1: ask for an injunction? That is right, they will have
Speaker 1: to pay the fine and alter the way their shopping
Speaker 1: services comparison shopping services are displayed. Um. I think it's
Speaker 1: likely that they did not seek an injunction because that
Speaker 1: standard is very high and it's unlikely that they could
Speaker 1: have met it. They would have had to show that
Speaker 1: there is urgency and that they would have suffered irreparable
Speaker 1: harm had they had to comply now, and they have
Speaker 1: to pay this fine which they can't afford, and changing
Speaker 1: these shopping services, it just seems unlikely. They would have
Speaker 1: been able to prove in court that having to do
Speaker 1: these things now, as they weighed out the appeal, would
Speaker 1: have caused urgent and irreparable harm to their business. So, Jenny,
Speaker 1: it's a it's the European court system, so it's not
Speaker 1: one all of us are as familiar with what what
Speaker 1: happens now? Uh? And and how can we expect this
Speaker 1: case to move along? Well, it will move along slowly,
Speaker 1: that much we know. So they have appealed to the
Speaker 1: General Court that is sort of the lower court. Compared
Speaker 1: to the lower court here in the U S. It
Speaker 1: would be the first decision. And Um. In the Intel's case,
Speaker 1: they had a negative decision from the lower court. In
Speaker 1: other words, that court upheld the European Commission's assessment and
Speaker 1: then they appealed to the European Court of Justice. So
Speaker 1: that would be like our appellate court. And this is
Speaker 1: the court and tells case that that that sent it
Speaker 1: back and said this needs more evaluation. Um, so we'll
Speaker 1: now wait for the General Court decision. And it could
Speaker 1: uphold what the European Commission has done here with respect
Speaker 1: to requiring a fine endo conduct remedy or it or
Speaker 1: it could say that this needs to be reevaluated, or
Speaker 1: reverse things, or even lower the fine. Last week, EU
Speaker 1: official said the plan that Google recently filed to comply
Speaker 1: with the European regulations appeared to be a step in
Speaker 1: the right direction. So Google is moving forward, changing according
Speaker 1: to what the European Commission said, and still fighting at
Speaker 1: the same time. So if it wins, it'll just be
Speaker 1: able to go back to what it did before. Will
Speaker 1: that be too much of a upheaval? Well, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's a lot. We're talking way
Speaker 1: down the road into a lot of speculation, and frankly,
Speaker 1: technology moves so quickly. These worlds move so quickly. Things
Speaker 1: could be so different by the time this decision comes out. Um,
Speaker 1: they have on ahead because they will be fined quite
Speaker 1: a lot if they don't make that change to the
Speaker 1: way they display their shopping services. So I think that's
Speaker 1: probably part of the reason they've gone ahead, and also
Speaker 1: because they haven't sought an injunction. Well, Jenn, let's take
Speaker 1: a little bit more into what we don't know exactly
Speaker 1: what they're going to end up arguing. And you know,
Speaker 1: only really Google knows its reasoning, as you said before,
Speaker 1: But when you look at the way the European Commission
Speaker 1: looks at anti trust cases, what do you think they
Speaker 1: might be arguing when they get when they challenge this, Well,
Speaker 1: I think they could be arguing a few things. First,
Speaker 1: that if you look at the totality of the circumstances,
Speaker 1: that what they're doing here is ultimately pro competitive or
Speaker 1: beneficial or or simply doesn't amount to a harm to
Speaker 1: the market that violates the European rules for abuse of dominance.
Speaker 1: That could be one thing, um, you know. Another could
Speaker 1: be that that as a vertically integrated company that they
Speaker 1: don't where where they have the search and they have
Speaker 1: also the comparison shopping service, says that they don't necessarily
Speaker 1: have an obligation to work with their competitors, that they
Speaker 1: haven't excluded their competitors completely, the competitors have access and
Speaker 1: are listed in the Google search results, and that it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily harmful for um Google to be giving favorability
Speaker 1: to its own products. It's it's it seems sort of.
Speaker 1: I don't know if Europe is used to having these
Speaker 1: huge fines and then appeals by these companies that take
Speaker 1: forever because these you know, the European companies haven't appealed
Speaker 1: as much. Well, you know, first, I think we have
Speaker 1: to remember that these huge fines are kind of far
Speaker 1: and few between. There have been some really huge fines,
Speaker 1: but the biggest ones, um, since this Google find was
Speaker 1: Intel and that was back in two thousand nine, so
Speaker 1: and that was appealed. Other finds haven't been appealed in
Speaker 1: the past, but they really are are sort of foreign,
Speaker 1: few between. There's not a lot of record to go
Speaker 1: on here. Well, Jenna, just about thirty seconds. Do you
Speaker 1: think that, um, you know a lot of American companies
Speaker 1: have been critical of the UU. Do you think that
Speaker 1: this might start a trend of American companies with this
Speaker 1: and Intel fighting back against the EU? You know, it
Speaker 1: certainly could be. It certainly could be some push to
Speaker 1: try to see if through these appeals, the courts in
Speaker 1: the Europe come out with decisions that are aligned a
Speaker 1: bit more with your with the US approach to antitrust,
Speaker 1: which is in this case and these abusive dominance cases
Speaker 1: is actually quite different. Well, our thanks to Jennifer Ree
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Intelligence for being with us today on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law