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
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
EU to Scrutinize Telecom Italia’s Network Sale to KKR
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI