Google files official response to European Commission's 'unfounded' anti-trust charges

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,309   +120
Staff member

Google has filed an official response to the European Commission’s claims earlier this year that its search practices – specifically, how it handles shopping results – violate local antitrust laws.

Kent Walker, SVP & General Counsel at Google, said the European Commission’s Statement of Objections (SO) claims its displays of paid ads from merchants diverted traffic away from shopping services.

What the SO fails to do, Walker points out, is back up its claim. It also doesn’t counter the benefits to consumers and advertisers or provide a clear legal theory to connect its claims with its proposed remedy. Walker said his company’s response provides both evidence and data that shows the OS’s concerns are unfounded.

It’s Google’s belief that the SO fails to consider the impact that major shopping services like Amazon and eBay have had.

To back up its argument, Google highlights the fact that it has delivered more than 20 billion free clicks to aggregators in the last decade in countries covered by the SO. Google said this is an increase in free traffic by 227 percent and the total traffic has increased even more.

As The New York Times notes, European officials will comb through the search giant’s 150-page response. What’s more, other major players siding with the Commission including Microsoft and Yelp, will get an opportunity to respond to Google’s rebuttal.

Google has yet to issue a response to the Commission’s investigation into Android.

Permalink to story.



Posts: 1,423   +347
European Commision claims microsoft has violated antitrust laws by making users install other browsers through IE & Edge.


Posts: 16,066   +4,866
I really believe the "Euroopean Commissions", manifest purpose is to fine the crap out of whatever big company they can, and use the money on themselves.

Really, somebody should investigate that commission. I've never seen a story here about how that fine money is used, and certainly nothing about what benefits those monies, have provided to the, (allegedly), injured parties, namely the European consumer.