You are here Debunking the Google-Yahoo Antitrust Myths
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2008-07-13 18:35
In advance of the Senate and House antitrust hearings on Google-Yahoo, I thought it would be useful to debunk some of the primary antitrust myths you will likely hear.
Myth #1: There can’t be an antitrust problem as long as consumers are just one click away from a competitive search engine.
Google is exploiting the “Internet choice paradox” where because users have near infinite choices to reach Internet content, they assume content businesses must have as much choice in advertising to Internet users as users have in reaching content. They don’t.
Myth #2: There can be no antitrust problem because Google and search advertising comprise such a small percentage of the advertising market.
Myth #3: There is no antitrust problem because Google is not doing what Microsoft did wrong, i.e. requiring exclusives or onerous restrictions.
-
This is false logic – there’s more than one way to break the law.
-
This is also a false analogy. Google’s dominant business is search advertising, while Microsoft’s dominant business is PC software.
-
These are very different business models with different business leverage points, sales processes, network effects and business practices -- meaning any anti-competitive tactics to foreclose competition could be different as well.
Myth #4: There’s “no evidence of suspect behavior” per a New York Times article.
Why would the DOJ and state AGs be investigating the Google-Yahoo deal at all, if they did not consider it “suspect behavior?
-
Google is right in claiming that there is nothing illegal about being the best and the biggest.
-
What is illegal, however, is as a dominant provider, openly impeding competitors from being able to compete more effectively.
-
When a dominant provider, proactively and successfully breaks-up a competitively-threatening combination of their #2 and #3 competitors by paying the stronger # 2 competitor to “partner” with #1 -- is this not “evidence” of “suspect behavior?”
-
More specifically, has Google proactively and successfully ensured that their only real competition, Yahoo and Microsoft, are both individually and collectively, less able to compete fully with Google going forward?
-
The #2 search-provider, Yahoo, is not the only evidence here.
-
Other competitors to Google, #4 IAC’s/Ask.com and #5 AOL, previously outsourced significant parts of their search business to Google and the market result was a steady decline in market share to Google.
Myth #5: This isn’t a big deal, if the DOJ does not like the Google-Yahoo partnership, the companies just won’t go through with it.
-
This is not an investigation of whether the Google-Yahoo deal is acceptable to the government or not.
-
This is now a broad antitrust investigation of whether:
-
Google and Yahoo are illegally colluding to reduce competition and/or fix prices;
-
Google is more broadly abusing its market power illegally to impede competition from its #2 and #3 search advertising competitors Yahoo and Microsoft; and
-
Google is abusing its market power in a myriad of ways, for example, “raising the minimum bids on keywords swiftly and steeply.”
-
In other words, Google is now under intense and ongoing antitrust scrutiny from the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and several State Attorney Generals.
Bottom line: This antitrust investigation of Google is much deeper, broader, and more serious than the market appreciates.
»
|