Illegal search engine business: What Google can expect
Google is running an illegal search engine business, says a US court. Now the plaintiff authorities are showing what verdict they are hoping for.
Artist's impression: The Google logo on a glass façade.
(Image: Skorzewiak/Shutterstock.com)
"Google is a monopolist and has acted as such to maintain its monopoly," a US federal judge ruled in August. Several of Google's search engine businesses are therefore illegal. If this becomes legally binding, it will be a great success for the plaintiffs, namely the US government and the governments of almost all US states. They are now giving a preview of how they intend to deal with Google. If they can convince the court, it will be uncomfortable for the data company. However, it does not have to fear its total destruction.
According to the partial ruling, Google has a monopoly on general search engines, but not on specialized search engines; the company also has a monopoly in the sub-market of text advertising on general search engines. This alone would not be frowned upon, but according to the court, Google had illegally exploited these monopolies to hinder competition.
The plaintiffs have now outlined their expected proposal for a framework plan in a communication to the court. In this plan, the court's requirements are to focus on four areas: Google's measures to pre-install its search engine on devices and in software, including any payments to third parties; the generation and display of search results; the economies of scale in advertising and its monetization; and the collection and use of big data.
In each area, the plaintiffs reserve the right to take measures ranging from restrictions on Google's freedom of contract, non-discrimination requirements, obligations to cooperate and share data, to "structural" requirements. The latter refers to the spin-off of parts of the company. However, this particularly severe intervention is only mentioned twice in the further explanations, once as a punitive measure if Google does not comply with the other court conditions.
No pre-installation by Google
Otherwise, the document submitted to the court on Tuesday only mentions "structural" measures in relation to the pre-installation or otherwise prominent placement of the search engine on devices and in software. Google must be prevented from using offerings such as the Chrome browser, the Play app store or its Android operating system to give the search engine and related services an advantage over competitors. But even here, forcing the sale of parts of the Group is not the very first measure. Perhaps the proposed "restrictions or bans" on pre-installation contracts or revenue shares for the search engine will suffice.
The plaintiffs may also want to prohibit selection windows in which users can choose between Google and a necessarily limited number of other search engines. After all, the best-known brand almost always wins in such decisions. An obligation brought into play by the plaintiff US states fits in with this: an advertising campaign financed by Google that shows users how to choose the best search engine for their needs.
Disclosure of data and algorithms
The basis for a good search engine is data. Lots and lots of it. Recognizing this, the plaintiffs are thinking aloud about forcing Google to disclose its data – either in its entirety or for queries via defined interfaces (API). Third parties could then use the information to develop competitive search engines and other services. This includes not only raw data but also indices and algorithms created by Google, including AI models, search results and the information used to rank the search engine (ranking signals), "especially for search results on mobile" devices. Google could even have to disclose the advertising it displays in order to make it easier for competitors to build a competitive advertising business.
Empfohlener redaktioneller Inhalt
Mit Ihrer Zustimmung wird hier eine externe Umfrage (Opinary GmbH) geladen.
Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass mir externe Inhalte angezeigt werden. Damit können personenbezogene Daten an Drittplattformen (Opinary GmbH) übermittelt werden. Mehr dazu in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
The governments want data protection concerns to be taken into account, but not misused as an excuse. If Google believes that it cannot sensibly share certain data with third parties, the data company itself should not be allowed to use or even store this data. The document also mentions further measures to "reduce the cost and complexity of indexing and storing data for competing general search engines", without being specific.
