Speaker 1: Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring
Speaker 1: legal issues in the news, and Today Bloomberg Laho student
Speaker 1: Grosso and Michael Best discussed Google's decision to appeal a
Speaker 1: record breaking two point nine billion dollar anti trust fine
Speaker 1: from the European Union. They speak of the Bloomberg Intelligence
Speaker 1: senior litigation analyst Jennifer Ree. Jennifer, why is it that
Speaker 1: Google has decided, unlike a lot of companies that have
Speaker 1: settled with the Commission, to appeal this fine. Well, that's
Speaker 1: a good question, and I guess it. You know, only
Speaker 1: Google really can say why they've decided to do this,
Speaker 1: though it seems with the Intel decision in a qualified sense,
Speaker 1: you know, that's kind of good news, I think for Google,
Speaker 1: because what it does is it sets up a court
Speaker 1: precedent in Europe that where a theory of harm is
Speaker 1: based on foreclosure of competitors, which is the case in
Speaker 1: both Intel's situation and in Google situation, that it can't
Speaker 1: just be taken for granted that that foreclosure is anti
Speaker 1: competitive and violates the laws, that an economic analysis needs
Speaker 1: to be applied and all of the facts and circumstances
Speaker 1: need to be um evaluated to understand whether really that
Speaker 1: causes harm to markets. Jen, a court spokeswoman, said that
Speaker 1: Google has not asked for an interim order to suspend
Speaker 1: the EU decision, which means that without an injunction, it's
Speaker 1: still obligated to pay the fine and comply with other
Speaker 1: elements of the June ruling. Can you imagine why they
Speaker 1: decided not to ask for an injunction? That is right,
Speaker 1: they will have to pay the fine and alter the
Speaker 1: way their shopping services comparison shopping services are displayed. Um.
Speaker 1: I think it's likely that they did not seek an
Speaker 1: injunction because that standard is very high, and it's unlikely
Speaker 1: that they could have met it. They would have had
Speaker 1: to show that there is urgency and that they would
Speaker 1: have suffered irreparable harm had they had to comply now
Speaker 1: and they have to pay this fine which they can't afford,
Speaker 1: and changing these shopping services. It just seems unlikely they
Speaker 1: would have been able to prove in court that having
Speaker 1: to do these things now, as they waited out the
Speaker 1: appeal would have caused urgent and irreparable harm to their business.
Speaker 1: What happens now? Uh, and and how can we expect
Speaker 1: this case to move along, well, it will move along
Speaker 1: slowly much we know. So we'll now wait for the
Speaker 1: General Court decision. And it could uphold what the European
Speaker 1: Commission has done here with respect to requiring a fine,
Speaker 1: endo conduct remedy or it, or it could say that
Speaker 1: this needs to be reevaluated or reverse things or even
Speaker 1: lower the fine. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation analyst Jennifer
Speaker 1: Re speaking with Bloomberg Lah host ju In Grosso. You
Speaker 1: can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall
Speaker 1: Street time here on Bloomberg Radio, and that's this morning's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Brae. If you can find more legal news
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com.
Speaker 1: Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools
Speaker 1: there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: BNA dot com for more information