MOVEMENT FOR AN OPEN WEB: “GOOGLE MUST SHARE USE OF ITS SEARCH AND ADVERTISING DATA IN USA SEARCH CASE REMEDIES”
MOW calls on US Department of Justice to force Google to offer third party access to ‘relevance engine’, search index and advertising IDs and data in search case remedies
Google must be compelled to offer third parties access to its core search technologies and advertising data in order to undo its search monopoly and open up major new opportunities for consumers and businesses, according to a filing with the US Department of Justice on behalf of the advocacy group, the Movement for an Open Web.
The recent US vs Google ‘search trial’ found that Google operates an illegal monopoly in the search services market and search text ads. The Department of Justice is currently developing competitive remedies to overcome that monopoly and MOW has made a series of proposals to the DoJ as part of its consultation process.
These include:
- Third party access to Google’s relevance engine and index – Google’s monopoly in search is bolstered by the fact that it has used its position to create an unassailable lead in the provision of consumer internet search services. It is unlikely that a competitor would be able to close this gap by developing their own search services without significant costs and so MOW proposes that Google should be compelled to offer access to its search engine to third party providers.
In this way, other businesses, including competing search businesses, could quickly and easily expand their current business or enter the search market with their own business models based around Google’s search results. This so-called ‘access remedy’ would quickly create a competitive and dynamic market in the provision of search to consumers.
Media brands and other technology companies now have a major opportunity since they could create consumer-facing search propositions based around their own brand, business model and differentiation with the core search results being provided without cost by Google.
- Third party access to Google’s data and advertising IDs – Alongside Google’s dominance of search technology, its position as a monopolist is underpinned by the huge amount of user data that it has captured through its unfair dominance. To allow third parties to compete with Google in search advertising, they should also be given access to Google’s anonymised user data and advertising IDs.
In this way, competitors search advertising propositions would be able to compete effectively with Google’s own search text ads. Without this data, any search competitor’s advertising proposition would be uncompetitive with Google’s and so Google’s monopoly would remain in place.
- Removal of defaults and revenue share deals – One of the key factors in Google’s dominance identified by the court in its findings was the power of Google’s default agreements with the likes of Apple. In exchange for a significant revenue share, players such as Apple agreed to make Google the default search provider on their services.
These deals not only sustained Google’s dominance amongst consumers, they also created a powerful financial incentive for these partners to not develop their own search services and to undermine the power of advertising propositions that compete with search, including open web advertising. MOW agrees with the court that these agreements should be banned to create a fairer and more balanced marketplace.
Taken together, these remedies would create a more competitive market for consumer search and search advertising services by enabling competing players to enter the market without the challenges of building proprietary search, data and partnership portfolios. MOW proposes that the access remedies would require Google to provide access for third parties on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) basis for free for a period of 15-20 years in order to enable an effective rebalancing of the market.
Timothy Cowen, co-founder of Movement for an Open Web, said: “Google’s long term dominance in search is such that it would be nigh on impossible for a potential competitor to build a search engine or advertising data portfolio that could match Google in the foreseeable future. As such, its essential that they be compelled to share their search technology and advertising data with third parties to help create a functioning, competitive market in this space.
“Third parties would be able to take Google’s results and data and create a myriad of new and exciting consumer propositions. These could be based around new advertising approaches, innovative business models, privacy options and a range of brands that could give consumers far more choice and freedom in their search usage and advertisers new options to reach their audiences.
“It goes without saying that Google’s portfolio of revenue sharing default agreements must be banned as a part of this remedy. As well as ensuring that Google has been forced on consumers from a number of angles, these agreements have also directly incentivised businesses such as Apple to discriminate against non-Google advertising products – as can be seen in their efforts to block the interoperable data that underlines open web advertising.
“These recommendations are fair and reasonable given the scale of Google’s monopoly and – more importantly – are capable of being implemented in a straightforward and sustainable way. We hope that the DoJ take account of our filings when reaching a final decision on the remedies that it will impose.”
About MOW
The Movement for an Open Web is an advocacy group fighting to protect the Internet from attempts by the Tech Platforms to enclose it in their walled gardens.
Companies such as Google and Apple are attempting to rewrite core, open and interoperable standards in areas such as advertising, payments and identity for their own advantage. They want to stop technical interoperability between businesses so that they can dominate the internet value chain. MOW exists to prevent them from achieving their aims.
MOW works with regulators, lawmakers and standards bodies to help create a fair and competitive digital market that is not dominated by the platforms. This is achieved by raising awareness of the issues, influencing legislation and regulation and ensuring that web standards are developed for all players and not just the biggest.