The last few weeks have seen a couple of remarkable announcements, one from the FTC about digital advertising disclaimers and one from the SEC about corporate financial disclosures, that just make digital advertising that much harder, if not totally impracticable.
Deconstructing the antitrust analysis applied by the FTC reveals the daunting task it faced in seeking to hold Google accountable for monopolization. The decision to fold-up the agency’s tent represents an admirable instance of prosecutorial restraint by a Commission that had been very publicly hounded by Google’s rivals.
That Google competitors do not like that the FTC will not sue for search monopolization is sour grapes, rather than a failure of will by the antitrust agencies. Governmental prudence toward search neutrality represents wisdom, not capitulation.
Google faces a moment of truth in the coming weeks over a lengthy US probe into potential abuse of its Internet search dominance.
With some educated guesses, knowledgeable observers can assess whether an FTC prosecution of Google would succeed. Others may (and do) differ, but this author believes an FTC monopolization case — or a “pure” Section 5 case — against Google would be a really bad idea.
The operative question remains whether whatever Google is charged with having done, or may do in the future, respecting its display of Web search results should be considered exclusionary conduct for antitrust purposes. The answer to date is a resounding “No.”
The current pas de deux between politicians and commentators over whether the FTC should sue Google under the antitrust laws may not be right, but is completely unexceptional in Washington, DC.
[This series of posts dissects the threatened FTC antitrust case against Google and concludes that a monopolization prosecution by the federal government would be a very bad idea. We divide the topic into five parts, one policy and four legal. Check out Part I and Part II.] Antitrust law is characterized by rigorous, fact-intensive analysis, so much so that the prevailing jurisprudence […]
Last week I participated in a “parliamentary” debate, sponsored by TechFreedom, on the Federal Trade Commission’s anticipated lawsuit against Google for monopolization. The dialog is interesting, if I say so myself!!
The core proposition in any attack on Google for unlawful monopolization, because the necessary premise is that Google’s dominant share — estimated at from 65 to 80% — of Web searches is the foundation of its alleged monopoly. But here the antitrust analysis begins to break down.