Reuters has revealed 18 of the 19 official complainants forming the basis of the European Union's anti-trust case against Google. Yelp's public policy director Luther Lowe told Reuters that "It's been clear from our meetings that U.S.-based companies have helped lead the charge by providing substantive evidence of Google's harm to consumers." The Register has this handy list:
[More after the Break]
In related news, eBay CEO John Donahoe told the Financial Times that the company is a major competitor to Google in the online shopping space, potentially supporting Google's case that it is not dominant in that market. However, "one of the first complainants to the European Commission, Shivaun Raff, founder of price-comparison service Foundem, told El Reg that the FT may be overstating the case":"I suspect the FT has got the wrong end of the stick and misinterpreted a nuanced comment about the extent to which different kinds of services compete with each other," she said.
Less than two weeks ago, the search monster was slapped with a Statement of Objections (SO) by the EU Commission for abusing its dominant market position in search by directing users to its own Shopping service. Such a move is usually the first step on the road to punitive measures.
Google's argument is that is is not abusing dominance in the online shopping market because it is not dominant in that market – this is where Donahoe's comments will help Eric Schmidt sleep well at night.
However, complainants argue that merchant sites like eBay and Amazon are distinct from price-comparison sites such as Moneysupermarket.Com, Nextag and Twenga.
According to its own rules, the Commission's first step in a so-called Article 102 investigation is to assess whether the undertaking concerned is dominant or not. "Defining the relevant market is essential for assessing dominance, because a dominant position can only exist on a particular market. The relevant product market is made of all products/services which the consumer considers to be a substitute for each other due to their characteristics, their prices and their intended use," according to Commission rules.
Given that an SO has already been issued, it is likely that Vestager has already thought about this and come to the conclusion that Google is abusing dominance.
According to Raff, "Google is putting a brave face on it, but there is no question that this is the beginning of the end... Not even Google's formidable PR machine can put this genie back in the bottle."
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:08PM
Yes, that would be interesting to know.
On the other hand, though, it wouldn't invalidate the complaint. The accusation stands or falls on its merits, regardless who is making the accusation. If Google is abusing its position, then that's wrong, full stop. (Or period, according to preference.) Implying otherwise would be a sort of corporate 'ad hominem' argument.
(Of course, if the accuser is also guilty of the same thing, then they should be punished too. I'm not trying to defend Microsoft here. After all, we're all smart enough to see beyond a simplistic 'goodie-vs-baddie' interpretation… aren't we?)
[sig redacted]