Does Google Hold a Dominant Market Position? – Addressing the (Minor) Significance of High Online User Shares
Posted by Social Science Research Network
Does Google Hold a Dominant Market Position? – Addressing the (Minor) Significance of High Online User Shares – Christian Kersting (Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf – Faculty of Law) and Sebastian Dworschak (Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf – Faculty of Law)
ABSTRACT: In Germany many observers argue that Google is a dominant undertaking under the competition laws and is therefore potentially able to hinder, discriminate or exploit other market participants. This assumption is mainly based on Google’s high share of users in online searches. Closer examination, however, casts doubt on this assumption. It grossly overestimates the significance of Google’s user share and ignores many additional factors that are relevant to the assessment of Google’s market position: as users may use Google’s service free of charge, it is already questionable if there is a market for online searches for competition law purposes. Even presuming the existence of such a free market, regulatory precedent to-date has held that high shares of users in “markets” for free products or services only have little significance in the assessment of an undertaking’s market position. Furthermore, Google’s high user share in general search is only ephemeral and subject to constant change. As users can switch to a wide range of competitors in the market, such as Microsoft Bing, Yahoo! or specialized search engines like Amazon or eBay, with ease, Google is forced to re-invent itself on a daily basis in order to maintain its user share. Taking also into account the absence of direct network effects and the enormous pressure to innovate in this market, the authors finally conclude that Google is not dominant under the competition laws.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand