The European Commission’s indictment of Google for its antitrust violations has yet again drawn attention to the Internet giant’s overwhelming dominance and monetisation of search operations. The EU’s antitrust regulators have accused Google of cheating competitors by diverting web traffic to favour its own comparison shopping site. The regulator has also launched a probe against Google’s Android mobile operating system for giving preferential treatment to Google smartphone apps. For long, rivals have complained that Google web search, used for nearly 90 per cent of all Internet searches, and Android, which enjoys a 70 per cent market share, have given the company an advantage, which it has unfairly used. Such overwhelming domination by many companies had — in the past — led to multiple antitrust litigations. For instance, IBM, which lorded over the personal computer segment, Microsoft, whose Windows operating systems dominated the early years of the IT revolution, and chip-maker Intel, have been accused of using their dominant platforms to prioritise the selling of their own products.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

For Google, the stakes are high. The Commission can impose a maximum fine of $6.6 billion and even force it to modify business practices. However, the company has its supporters too. Many Internet users view Google’s services as convenient and intuitive. Google has also used the defence that there are competitors available, just a website or a click away. Among the settlements that Google offered — that now stand nixed by the indictment — were to display competitors’ products more prominently, allow advertisers greater portability, and give companies flexibility on choosing the content displayed in searches. Where Google has an unhealthy edge in e-commerce is its access to users’ search history. This helps it calculate consumers’ socio-economic profile and the prices to offer them. Despite the obvious violation of privacy, this prized information on behavioural patterns is valued by Internet companies and security agencies. There are also those who view the European Commission’s tough line as parochial, considering that a clutch of American companies have dwarfed their European counterparts. In contrast, the Chinese have done incredibly well in stalling the American juggernaut. Its homegrown products like Baidu and SoSo dominate in web search with Google coming a distant third.

Like Europe, India appears resigned to domestic companies failing to corner a decent market share. It is now reposing faith in the regulatory regime. Last March, the Competition Commission of India fined Google Rs1 crore for not cooperating with its probe into complaints that Google allegedly abused its dominant position in web search and advertising to favour its own services and unfairly promoted the services of companies willing to pay more money. However, compared to the European Commission which can impose penalties up to one-tenth of annual revenues, the CCI can levy a maximum fine of just Rs1 crore. Such paltry fines are unlikely to impact virtual monopolies like Google or serve as a deterrent. The monetisation of web searches for advertising purposes is not a bad or  perverse idea. But the size, scale and influence enjoyed by Google has subordinated every other e-commerce company to its whims and fancies. France is pondering a law allowing regulators to monitor search engine algorithms and ensure they are fair and non-discriminatory. But Google has cited its intellectual property rights and raised fears of its algorithm falling into rival hands. This is a valid concern too, but there is no way to ensure transparency unless the algorithm is monitored. With no signs of new competitors on the horizon or of Google’s ascendancy and popularity ebbing, there are no easy options available to cut the behemoth down to size.