Google, Europe Strike Last-Chance Antitrust Deal

The tentative agreement will bring an end to a long, winding investigation that potentially had billions in fines on the line.

A man passes under the Google sign at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California on January 5, 2010.  Google unveiled its new "superphone," the Nexus One, marking the online search giant's first leap into the smartphone market.  UPI/Mohammad Kheirkhah
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Feb. 5, 2014, 6:24 a.m.

Google has reached a not-yet-fi­nal­ized set­tle­ment with European an­ti­trust au­thor­it­ies to change its search and ad­vert­ising func­tions in a bid to quiet charges it un­fairly pro­motes its own ser­vices over those of rivals, of­fi­cials an­nounced Wed­nes­day.

The tent­at­ive agree­ment would ex­empt Google from any wrong­do­ing and would not re­quire the In­ter­net gi­ant to pay any fine after a more than three-year in­vest­ig­a­tion. Joa­quin Almunia, the European Uni­on’s com­pet­i­tion com­mis­sion­er, said Google’s con­ces­sion of­fer­ings are “cap­able of ad­dress­ing the com­pet­i­tion con­cerns” the com­mis­sion had raised.

“After a care­ful ana­lys­is of the last pro­pos­als we re­ceived from Google last month, and in­tense ne­go­ti­ations that man­aged to fur­ther im­prove what Google sent to us in mid-Janu­ary, I be­lieve that Google’s new pro­pos­als are cap­able of ad­dress­ing the com­pet­i­tion con­cerns I set out to them,” Almunia said at a press con­fer­ence in Brus­sels, ac­cord­ing to his pre­pared re­marks. “The al­tern­at­ive of ad­versari­al pro­ceed­ings would take many years, with many un­cer­tain­ties, and would not have the same im­me­di­ate im­pact.”

Almunia noted that four kinds of busi­ness prac­tices waged by Google “raised con­cerns from a com­pet­i­tion point of view” when the com­mis­sion opened its in­vest­ig­a­tion back in Novem­ber 2012.

The first two con­cerns in­volved Google’s “spe­cial­ized search ser­vices” on things like ho­tels and res­taur­ants, which the com­mis­sion wor­ried demon­strated a fa­vor­ing of the com­pany’s own ser­vices above rival of­fer­ings. The oth­er two con­cerns dealt with on­line ad­vert­ising.

“We will be mak­ing sig­ni­fic­ant changes to the way Google op­er­ates in Europe,” said Kent Walk­er, Google’s seni­or vice pres­id­ent and gen­er­al coun­sel. “We have been work­ing with the European Com­mis­sion to ad­dress is­sues they raised and look for­ward to resolv­ing this mat­ter.”

The deal will make Google guar­an­tee that it dis­plays the res­ults of three rivals dur­ing ser­vice searches in a fash­ion sim­il­ar to its own ser­vices.

Almunia had pre­vi­ously re­jec­ted pro­pos­als by Google twice and warned that “the third try should be the last one.” He ad­di­tion­ally cau­tioned in his re­marks that he would have been “ob­liged to go in a dif­fer­ent dir­ec­tion” had the latest round of ne­go­ti­ations not meted out a work­able com­prom­ise.

The deal goes farther than the set­tle­ment Google reached last year with the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion over sim­il­ar con­cerns that it was ma­nip­u­lat­ing its search res­ults to hurt com­pet­i­tion. Google agreed to only minor changes to its busi­ness in the United States.

But the European set­tle­ment was not enough to sat­is­fy Google’s com­pet­it­ors, who have been lob­by­ing reg­u­lat­ors around the world to crack down on the search gi­ant.

“The European Com­mis­sion has tent­at­ively ac­cep­ted a pro­pos­al by Google which is worse than do­ing noth­ing,” said Thomas Vin­je, leg­al coun­sel for Fair­Search, a group rep­res­ent­ing Mi­crosoft, Ex­pe­dia, Tri­pAd­visor, and oth­er com­pan­ies.

Vin­je claimed Google’s com­mit­ments “lock in dis­crim­in­a­tion” and raise rivals’ costs.

“The Google pro­pos­al re­quires rivals to pay Google for place­ment sim­il­ar to that of Google’s own ma­ter­i­al, un­der­cut­ting the abil­ity of oth­er to com­pete and provide con­sumer choice,” he said. “This will be done through an auc­tion mech­an­ism that re­quires par­ti­cip­at­ing com­pan­ies to hand the vast ma­jor­ity of their profits to Google.”

Brendan Sas­so con­trib­uted

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
27TH AMENDMENT
Congress Can’t Seem Not to Pay Itself
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Far Away from Cleveland is the California GOP Staying?
5 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."

ATTORNEY MAY RELEASE THEM ANYWAY
SCOTUS Will Not Allow ‘DC Madam’ Phone Records to Be Released
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."

Source:
×