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
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh