Even when a company is not a total monopoly, but has become dominant in a market through excellence and consumer choice, it may not be allowed to *abuse* its dominant position, hurting citizens, consumers, competitors and small business. Such abuse is not to the long term benefit of society.

Maybe in the EU, but it doesn't work that way in US anymore*. Also, you'd have to go some to make a case that Google is hurting consumers. Consumers LOVE Google.

*Case in point - Comcast-Time Warner, which most certainly does hurt consumers

Consumers LOVE Google.

Smokers LOVE cigarettes.

@heisje

You pretty much nailed it with your response. It appears some think that merely by offering users a choice of competing search engines it somehow implies the dominant search engine is exempt from conducting business in a lawful manner.

Though the EU will look at many issues, privacy is a major concern to me. There's not many websites I've visited that do not have Adsense, Analytics, YouTube or Hosted Library Fetch. How can users shut these items off, to protect their privacy, without having to install ad blockers that can kill the functionality of a website?

I'm sure there's some segment of webmasters who think Google gives rank boosts to pages that have some Google code in it. This is another example of how Google's dominance in search extends well beyond one domain and has become a norm. Though webmasters can choose what they want to add to their websites, users (surfers) should have some control of how their search activity is used and one company appears to be intent on ensnaring them in one of their many free products or services. I would expect the EU to look closely at this since privacy appears to be a hot topic in many of their member nations.

Wilburforce LOL 'Smokers LOVE cigarettes.'

Google does not care, it's all about shareholders now, they put a TON of pressure on the ways they do things to make more money.

I swear I think Google looks at 'money keyword terms' from companies that DO PPC, then create a algo that takes them all down a big notch by looking at those '$ Terms' and then attempts to create more use of a PPC per each user.

I have spent over 1/2 a million on PPC since I started, it just got worse and worse, all the signs that lead me to the end result where I turned off my PPC account for good and permanently, then Google called me, tried to 'help' lol, the guy was a retention specialist on speakerphone, tried to tell me he was Google support. I say BS.

I'm done paying Google! And I know soo soo soo many others doing the same, just watch their next earnings release, mark my words, PPC will be unexpectedly down.

~Hollywood

After reading comments here and other places around the web. It's clear that some people think Google is getting into trouble only because it is a monopoly. The issue here is the abuse of power. So even those who are against Google might be disappointed of the outcome because Google will still the have power to obliterate sites at will e.t.c as long as they are not doing that to promote their own services.

some people think Google is getting into trouble only because it is a monopoly. The issue here is the abuse of power

No, the monopoly issue is in my view more important.

Whether Google has abused or is abusing its power (a lot of which, in Europe, stems from its virtual monopoly) is debatable and is, ultimately, for courts to decide.

However, the current management, directors and shareholders are not a fixed body, and future incarnations may abuse the power monoploy brings even if the current regime does not. For that reason, the monopoly needs to be broken up.

Note that the EU parliament's observations do not name Google, and while it is fairly obvious to most of us that what they say puts Google very squarely in the frame, I think the general tenor of their statement is not limited to Google: they don't want any search engine to have such power, whoever they are, however they acquire it, and whether or not they abuse it.

A lot of the debate here appears to me to be looking though the wrong end of the telescope: Google's position in Europe simply highlights a wider problem (in which search monopoly is one major factor); Google isn't the target, the wider problem is.

Whether Google has abused or is abusing its power . . . . is debatable and is, ultimately, for courts to decide.

Wrong - most countries, as well as the EU Commission itself, have anti-trust authorities/committees vested with the power of administrative resolution of abuse issues, including imposing fines (sometimes huge). Appeals are possible, but scarcely ever in court, mostly administrative. The onus against such dominant position abuse is not on the individual citizen or corporation, but "collectively" on the state. Thus the EU Parliament resolution.

.

Wrong - most countries, as well as the EU Commission itself, have anti-trust authorities/committees vested with the power of administrative resolution of abuse issues

The EU commission - as well as similar authorites in most nation states - are subject to the courts (not, as you seem to imply, the other way round).

From the EU Commision's own guidelines on breaches of competition law: "The European Courts review all aspects of Commission decisions and have full powers to vary the fine imposed."

When I said it "is, ultimately, for courts to decide", that is exactly what I meant: ultimately. The courts are the ultimate arbiter almost everywhere.

No, the monopoly issue is in my view more important.

But a company can reach a monopoly status due to a great product/service, should a company like that be punished?. My opinion on Google though is that they are abusing their power by putting their products ahead of competitors. For an example a link to Google finance is always first on stock search, Google+ reviews are always ahead of sites with better reviews and there's probably more.

For an example a link to Google finance is always first on stock search, Google+ reviews

Don't forget Google Shopping ahead of ALL retail websites.

Agreement

'For an example a link to Google finance is always first on stock search, Google+ reviews'

&

'Don't forget Google Shopping ahead of ALL retail websites.'

Thus: this IS A PROBLEM. It's an easy read for the eyes, Google is manipulating search results just the way they punish all us website owners about SPAM, while they do exactly what they preach not to do, yet they do if millions and millions of times every single day, they put themselves in front of everyone and they DO monopolize and hurt small and medium sized businesses... the EU stated exactly this, they said it's hurting business, both small and midsize. It has to get fixed. It's a TRUE monopoly and abuse of power. Period!

@ Wilburforce

Maybe, then, I misunderstood your position.

Courts intervene at appeal level. My point was that in cases of dominant-position-abuse, individual citizens or businesses are relieved of the burden of fighting it out in court individually with the abuser, or through class actions - as most states have anti-trust legislation and authorities commissioned to monitor and regulate market behavior. They are vested by law with the power of administrative investigation and administrative resolution of abuse issues, according to their judgement, including imposing fines. They investigate petitions and complaints, and act accordingly. Courts intervene on appeal mostly.


.

Do you remember that story a few weeks ago about how Google News operates in Germany? the papers tried to club together and get Google to pay for their snippets, but Google ended up carrying on paying nothing, because the papers didn't want to lose traffic,

I think the way Google handled that could return to bite them on the bum, given that it seems to be Germany driving this. because it basically showed that the papers didn't have a choice. Google fans are always saying how people have a free choice to stop using Google, but Google showed there that actually you don't.... because if try and stop Google from taking your content (by removing yourself from the serps) then the chances are that your profits will take a nose dive.
That is what a monopoly does. When people are forced to go along with it even when they clearly don't want to, because google have got them by the balls

[edited by: londrum at 10:26 pm (utc) on Nov 30, 2014]

But a company can reach a monopoly status due to a great product/service, should a company like that be punished?

I don't think it is a case of punishment, so much as whether it is the broader social and economic interests of the community as a whole that any one company should hold such a dominant market share in any single product or service.

Once a company has reahced a certain critical mass in its own sector it is in a position to start buying up its competitors, and at that point market forces are no longer able to control it. So at some point, legislation and state intervention will be the only way to rein in such very successful businesses, however benign (or otherwise) they are.

Google uses BIG scare tactics to get ALL they want. This I know being an SEO and starting my own SEO company and my own successful businesses. One of which started with just ten of us (I was webmaster / SEO) and we grew it to 70 million a year with 400 employees.

News People who read this, understand, this IS a story, Google is monopolizing us/you/etc. Trust me, I work with NASA spaceships, there is a problem.

~Hollywood

@heisje

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest it was up to citizens or businesses, either individually or in class actions.

Google has a history of fighting individuals and businesses as far as the courts will allow (e.g. Louis Vuitton in the European Court of Justice), and can afford to go to appeal where few of us can afford to get it into court at all.

Exactly --> "Google has a history of fighting individuals and businesses as far as the courts will allow (e.g. Louis Vuitton in the European Court of Justice), and can afford to go to appeal where few of us can afford to get it into court at all."

This is why going forward I think Google will have a problem, it's obviously them as the big guerrilla! It's totally not a good place to be, they are killing many small and mid size companies.

Do you remember that story a few weeks ago about how Google News operates in Germany? the papers tried to club together and get Google to pay for their snippets, but Google ended up carrying on paying nothing, because the papers didn't want to lose traffic,

I think the way Google handled that could return to bite them on the bum, given that it seems to be Germany driving this. because it basically showed that the papers didn't have a choice.

If the publishers didn't have a choice, the problem was on their own doorstep. Why? Because any "monopoly" that Google enjoys is on search, and one would expect Germany's top media brands to attract direct traffic, not just traffic from Google News. If Springer Verlag and its ilk can't attract readers with their long-established media brands, something's wrong with their product and how they present it on the Web--and "Google's monopoly" is an excuse for their decline, not the reason.

Why? Because any "monopoly" that Google enjoys is on search

This is wrong. Google holds dominant marketshare in many other areas.

See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors").

Google surpasses a 50% marketshare in a variety of areas that extend beyond search. Though it's not just the percentage of marketshare that matters for Google's non-search related businesses, but how they utilize their dominance in search to give their other businesses a competitive (or anti-competitive) advantage.

An excellent read/thread that should get a lot more attention. Any of the searches that show Google properties as the first result didn't happen by magic, by accident or a neutral algorithm.

The funny thing about Google is that they always tell us their results are automated, "it's an algorithm", but their own services usually take the top spots. Naturally people are going to start questioning the rest of the SERPs, are they natural?. This will come back to bite Google in the long run if they continue this way, they could even end up being forced to reveal their algorithm. And before the usual people say "oh, but it's their search engine so what's wrong with placing their own services first?", Google is a monopoly and that's how monopolies are treated.

It is interesting to observe, from this thread, how much "goodwill" Google has built with webmasters!

.

Wonder if some of those defending Google the most own Google shares? There definitely seems to have been a major shift from the early days of Google when Google and Googleguy were everyone's friend. Somewhere along the way, a line was crossed. Perhaps the EU vote is an indication of that.

Regards...jmcc

Wonder if some of those defending Google the most own Google shares?

It isn't about defending Google, it's about defending free competition and the right of Internet users to pick winners and losers.

As The Economist has put it, "European moves against Google are about protecting companies, not consumers." In its editorial, it said:

"The European Parliament’s Googlephobia looks a mask for two concerns, one worthier than the other. The lamentable one, which American politicians pointed out this week, is a desire to protect European companies. Among the loudest voices lobbying against Google are Axel Springer and Hubert Burda Media, two German media giants. Instead of attacking successful American companies, Europe’s leaders should ask themselves why their continent has not produced a Google or a Facebook. Opening up the EU’s digital services market would do more to create one than protecting local incumbents."

As The Economist has put it, "Google (whose executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a member of the board of The Economist’s parent company)..."

MEPs also stressed the need to prevent online companies from abusing dominant positions by enforcing EU competition rules and unbundling search engines from other commercial services.

If everyone could put their personal feelings about Google (and there's no doubt that many posters in this thread have very personal feelings involved) aside for a minute... The above is something that should concern all internet users.

This is a government organization proposing that it tell internet companies how they can function. It does not apply to just Google, it potentially applies to all search engines.

Whats the second biggest Encyclopedia after Wikipedia? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest Social Network after Facebook? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest video sharing site after Youtube? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest micro blogger after twitter? Who cares!

Fantastic point, the answer is: apparently, at some point, the EU is going to care.

Google intentionally rigging their search results to promote their other properties.

GOOG and other companies have sly ways to prevent competition, I don't think I need to spell it out

I admit that I have not followed the issue of Google supposedly rigging results very closely. But I have checked on the most compelling claims I've seen over the years, purely for curiosity.

And so far I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that it's happening. I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. I say this from the perspective of a developer with a background in search engines. I have a reasonably good understanding of how they work.

This is a sincere request, if anyone has come across non-anecdotal evidence that search results are rigged, please post it or message me.

After lack of evidence, the primary reason I don't believe it's happening is this: Google has yet to do anything that stupid. They make most of their money from Adsense, the larger part of which comes from the popularity of their organic search, which comes from the fact that web users like their results.

They would therefore be absolutely insane to risk all of that by doctoring organic results. I could see one division or another doing it under their own volition (using information they aren't supposed to have, essentially black hat SEO). But as soon as the people higher up found out about it, they would put an end to it.

IMO this should also be the perspective of the EU. Prove that something wrong is happening before voting to fix it.

@IanKelley
I don't think Google's results are as natural as they claim. My main issue is how Google services make it to the top. Would Google+ have had the hotel reviews it has if Google hadn't pushed it to the top?. Those Google+ rankings are artificial. I just searched for hotel X reviews and Google+ reviews are placed just below the hotel's official page, way ahead of other top sites which have much more reviews by the way. Why not put TripAdvisor or Yelp there instead?.

Edit: With enough time Google+ will become dominant on reviews and people will tell us "oh Google+ is just that good and users love it".

Whereas I just did the same search (hotel X reviews) for 4 hotels in my area and Google+ wasn't even on the first page.

Possibly because I almost never use Google+ and therefore the personalized results algo doesn't give it extra weight. In any case this is what I mean by non-anecdotal evidence. Something repeatable without a more likely alternate explanation.

IanKelley
What I see is a link to the hotel and breadcrumbs(?) below which link to Google+ reviews, and then an address below. The result is always in this format. Are you not seeing this format?. These are popular hotels I searched for. Oh and on the right(knowledge graph), I see links to Google+ there as well.

This is a government organization proposing that it tell internet companies how they can function.

Exactly.

The internet has brought far-reaching changes to how we do business, and legislation that applies to the high street or other forms of non-internet commerce has failed to exert the control over internet companies that other kinds of business take for granted.

It is the state's prerogative to regulate commerce, and I personally have fewer misgivings about state regulation of the internet than I do about unregulated multinational giants.

The EU Parliament's vote was not about Google, it was about the need to bring search engines under regulatory control. There is no prima facie reason why a search engine should not be subject to the same competition law that regulates European business generally. The fact that "everyone uses Google" is a reason to exercise scrutiny, not a defence against it.

And

They would therefore be absolutely insane to risk all of that by doctoring organic results.

Applying algorithm changes that can have a false-positive ("collateral damage") punitive effect is:

1. Doctoring pre-existing organic results, and
2. Unfairly damaging to the affected businesses in a market where 90% of their potential clients use only one search engine.

Even if Google's intention is benign, the effect is not necessarily so.

The primary point, however, is that search engines should not be exempt from the same competion regulations that affect the rest of us, and I have yet to see a reasoned counter to that argument here.