WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Google Appeals EU Antitrust Fine (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.920
<v Speaker 1>Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring

0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:05.800
<v Speaker 1>legal issues in the news, and Today Bloomberg Laho student

0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:09.119
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and Michael Best discussed Google's decision to appeal a

0:00:09.240 --> 0:00:12.240
<v Speaker 1>record breaking two point nine billion dollar anti trust fine

0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>from the European Union. They speak of the Bloomberg Intelligence

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:20.439
<v Speaker 1>senior litigation analyst Jennifer Ree. Jennifer, why is it that

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:23.680
<v Speaker 1>Google has decided, unlike a lot of companies that have

0:00:23.800 --> 0:00:28.040
<v Speaker 1>settled with the Commission, to appeal this fine. Well, that's

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:30.400
<v Speaker 1>a good question, and I guess it. You know, only

0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:33.199
<v Speaker 1>Google really can say why they've decided to do this,

0:00:33.640 --> 0:00:37.880
<v Speaker 1>though it seems with the Intel decision in a qualified sense,

0:00:38.200 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, that's kind of good news, I think for Google,

0:00:41.479 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>because what it does is it sets up a court

0:00:44.360 --> 0:00:47.880
<v Speaker 1>precedent in Europe that where a theory of harm is

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:50.760
<v Speaker 1>based on foreclosure of competitors, which is the case in

0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:55.480
<v Speaker 1>both Intel's situation and in Google situation, that it can't

0:00:55.520 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 1>just be taken for granted that that foreclosure is anti

0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:02.640
<v Speaker 1>competitive and violates the laws, that an economic analysis needs

0:01:02.640 --> 0:01:05.200
<v Speaker 1>to be applied and all of the facts and circumstances

0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:08.760
<v Speaker 1>need to be um evaluated to understand whether really that

0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:13.000
<v Speaker 1>causes harm to markets. Jen, a court spokeswoman, said that

0:01:13.120 --> 0:01:15.959
<v Speaker 1>Google has not asked for an interim order to suspend

0:01:15.959 --> 0:01:19.720
<v Speaker 1>the EU decision, which means that without an injunction, it's

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>still obligated to pay the fine and comply with other

0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:27.399
<v Speaker 1>elements of the June ruling. Can you imagine why they

0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:30.880
<v Speaker 1>decided not to ask for an injunction? That is right,

0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 1>they will have to pay the fine and alter the

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:37.199
<v Speaker 1>way their shopping services comparison shopping services are displayed. Um.

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:39.560
<v Speaker 1>I think it's likely that they did not seek an

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:43.320
<v Speaker 1>injunction because that standard is very high, and it's unlikely

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:44.920
<v Speaker 1>that they could have met it. They would have had

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>to show that there is urgency and that they would

0:01:47.280 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 1>have suffered irreparable harm had they had to comply now

0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:53.760
<v Speaker 1>and they have to pay this fine which they can't afford,

0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>and changing these shopping services. It just seems unlikely they

0:01:57.160 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 1>would have been able to prove in court that having

0:01:59.200 --> 0:02:01.360
<v Speaker 1>to do these things now, as they waited out the

0:02:01.400 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 1>appeal would have caused urgent and irreparable harm to their business.

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 1>What happens now? Uh, and and how can we expect

0:02:09.280 --> 0:02:11.919
<v Speaker 1>this case to move along, well, it will move along

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:15.520
<v Speaker 1>slowly much we know. So we'll now wait for the

0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:19.560
<v Speaker 1>General Court decision. And it could uphold what the European

0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:22.880
<v Speaker 1>Commission has done here with respect to requiring a fine,

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:25.920
<v Speaker 1>endo conduct remedy or it, or it could say that

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 1>this needs to be reevaluated or reverse things or even

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:33.120
<v Speaker 1>lower the fine. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation analyst Jennifer

0:02:33.160 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Re speaking with Bloomberg Lah host ju In Grosso. You

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:37.919
<v Speaker 1>can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall

0:02:37.960 --> 0:02:41.040
<v Speaker 1>Street time here on Bloomberg Radio, and that's this morning's

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Brae. If you can find more legal news

0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:45.919
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com.

0:02:46.000 --> 0:02:49.520
<v Speaker 1>Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.119
<v Speaker 1>there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

0:02:52.160 --> 0:02:53.880
<v Speaker 1>BNA dot com for more information