ICOMP on Google Android fine

Consumers have a right to choose. This has been denied them by Google through an intricate system of abusive practices aimed at locking competition out and users in. The Android strategy is similar to other Alphabet Google products under investigation: Undercut and dominate competition by dumping Android free of charge, tie and bundle Google products … read more

Google: EC prohibition decision publication timing

PaRR asked leading competition lawyers when they expect the recent Google EC prohibition decision (Search Comparison Shopping) to be made public by the commission. Their 12 July 2017 piece titled EC Google public decision seen coming quickly – lawyers comes to the conclusions: Google seen keen to stretch cofidentiality process, delay damages claims Extensive negotiations … read more

A Golden Opportunity to Restore User Trust

The EU Court of Justice’s recent decision in Schrems, invalidating the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour—a primary mechanism used to lawfully transfer data across the Atlantic—has left both European and American companies reeling. Without the Safe Harbour, many everyday but essential business tasks, like reaching out to potential customers or working with business partners, have become mired … read more

European Court of Justice continues to grapple with online media issues

Judges at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) continue to grapple with online media issues. The latest case concerns when is a multimedia news outlet also an audiovisual service provider. The difference is important because the two are subject to different regulatory regimes. New Media Online is an Austrian company that operates the website of … read more

ICOMP Statement: CCI Charges Against Google

The filing of substantial charges against Google by India’s competition commission, the CCI, as reported in Indian and global media, represents a major step towards ending Google’s anti-competitive behaviour. It follows three years of detailed investigation of complaints in India. With competition authorities in both India and the EU now presenting formal statements clearly articulating … read more

Google in Denial

Today’s blog post from Google is, unfortunately, simply another attempt to divert attention away from the devastating impact their self-preferencing has had on the online market, making many of the same old arguments we have seen before. Commissioner Vestager has been clear that in her view Google’s systematic self preferencing of its own comparison shopping … read more

The Simple Application of European Competition Rules

Former President of the General Court of the European Union has recently published a paper regarding the essential facility doctrine with regards to the Google case. In his paper, in which he acknowledges he has undertaken paid research for Google, Mr Vesterdorf essentially argues that the Commission’s case is flawed because Google is not an … read more

Responding to Googlespeak: Part 4

Myth 4: Competitors don’t want us to include our own services in search results. In characterizing the Commission’s SO, Google claims it is based on allegations by competitors that “Google’s practice of including our own specialized results…in search have significantly harmed their businesses” (emphasis added).   Fact 4: Competitors just want Google to let them … read more

Responding to Googlespeak: Part 3

Myth 3: That there are other specialized online services proves we’ve done nothing wrong. Google claims that the continued existence of other comparison shopping services shows that the Commission’s “allegations of harm” are “wide of the mark.”   Fact 3: Google’s manipulation of search results harms consumers and competition. The Commission’s SO focuses on the … read more