DOCSLIB.ORG

"Big Data" in Online Platform Competition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE ROLE OF “BIG DATA” IN ONLINE PLATFORM COMPETITION Andres V. Lerner1 August 26, 2014 1 Executive Vice President, Compass Lexecon. I am grateful to Emmett Dacey and Janin Wimer for excellent research assistance and to Google, Inc. for research support. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. 1 | Page Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2482780 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 II. The Collection of User Data by Online Providers is a Common and Important Part of the Competitive Process ................................................................................................ 7 A. The collection of customer data is widespread ............................................................. 7 1. The collection of user data by online providers ...................................................... 7 2. The collection of customer data by offline firms .................................................... 9 B. Procompetitive rationales for the collection of user data by online providers ............ 10 1. User data allows online providers to improve the quality of services .................. 10 2. User data allows online providers to monetize effectively and thereby offer services at lower (often zero) prices to users ........................................................ 12 III. The Collection of User Data Does Not Lead to the Entrenchment of Dominant Online Platforms .............................................................................................................. 19 A. Foreclosure of rivals through the collection of user data is highly unlikely ............... 20 1. User data is non-rivalrous and incumbent online providers do not have (explicit or de facto) exclusivity over user data .................................................... 21 2. No one firm controls all, most, or even a significant share of user data ............... 23 B. Competitive success of online platforms is driven by much more than the amount of user data collected ................................................................................................... 27 C. Because of rapidly diminishing returns to user data, any advantages of scale generally weaken or even disappear at a low level ..................................................... 35 1. Diminishing returns in the provision of user services ........................................... 35 2. Diminishing returns in monetization ..................................................................... 39 IV. Online Markets Have Not “Tipped” to Dominant Online Platforms ........................... 46 A. There is no evidence that online markets have tipped to dominant platforms ............ 46 B. Platform differentiation reduces the propensity to tip to a dominant platform ........... 53 C. Multi-sided network effects do not reinforce tipping to a dominant platform ............ 56 1. Multi-sided network effects for advertisers are limited ........................................ 58 2. Multi-sided network effects for users are weak or nonexistent ............................ 60 V. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 62 2 | Page Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2482780 I. Introduction 1. The collection of user data by providers of online services such as Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Apple, Amazon, and Google recently has become a popular topic in debates about the application of competition policy to online markets.2 At issue is whether the collection of large amounts of data—sometimes referred to as “big data”—and in particular, data collected from users, can lead to markets “tipping” to dominant online platforms and, as a result, whether such markets merit earlier and more aggressive antitrust intervention.3 2. Arguments that the potential for the collection of user data to create insurmountable entry barriers are based on the assumption that online providers need a large base of users from whom to collect data, and large amounts of user data in order to offer valuable services and compete effectively for users. This “feedback loop” is presumed to lead to significant economies of scale and to the entrenchment of dominant platforms in markets for online services.4 Proponents of greater antitrust intervention in online markets claim that “big data,” particularly data from users, is the “oil” of the new online economy, and that this essential input is increasingly controlled by a handful of dominant players.5 In turn, it is argued that because dominant online platforms face insufficient competitive constraints, they are likely to collect more and more data from each user, and more sensitive personal data, and/or to undercompensate users for the value of the data they contribute—i.e., provide insufficient services for free relative to the value of user data collected. 2 See, e.g., Nathan Newman, “Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data,” working paper, NYU Information Law Institute. Nathan Newman is the Microsoft Research Fellow of the Information Law Institute at New York University, last revised August 14, 2014. See also, “Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy,” Preliminary Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor, March 2014, available at https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2014/14- 03-26_competitition_law_big_data_EN.pdf. 3 See, e.g., Nathan Newman, “Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data,” working paper, NYU Information Law Institute, last revised August 14, 2014, p. 6: “depending on the market to correct monopoly dominance in such sectors is a poor strategy and why government intervention is needed, and needed at an earlier point than conventionally understood.” 4 The European Data Protection Supervisor stated that “[t]he collection and control of massive amounts of personal data are a source of market power for the biggest players in the global market for internet services.” (“Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data,” European Data Protection Supervisor - EDPS/2014/06, March 26, 2014, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_EDPS-14-6_en.htm?locale=en.) 5 Nathan Newman, “Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data,” working paper, NYU Information Law Institute, last revised August 14, 2014, pp. 3-4: “The rise of ‘big data’ as it’s sometimes labeled means that control of information, deemed the ‘new oil’ of the information economy, is skewed towards a few players with both the concentrated data processing power and supply of user data to dominate a particular sector.” 3 | Page Senator Al Franken summarized this position, stating that “when companies become so dominant that they can violate their users’ privacy without worrying about market pressure, all that’s left is the incentive to get more and more information about you.”6 On the advertiser side, it is asserted that the collection of large volumes of user data, and the utilization of such data to target advertisements to users, leads to higher advertising rates, which are passed on to consumers in higher prices for goods and services. 3. In this article, I explore assumptions behind calls for greater antitrust scrutiny of the collection of user data by online platforms, and proposals for more aggressive antitrust intervention in such markets. The primary conclusion is that claims that collection of user data creates significant economies of scale, and thereby leads to the entrenchment of dominant online platforms, are unsupported by real-world evidence. Naked assertions regarding the role of user data in online platform competition regrettably have replaced a careful and meaningful analysis of competition in online markets. 4. User data is a valuable input into the provision of online services. Online providers collect user data in order to improve the services offered to users, and to monetize those services effectively through targeted advertising, which leads to valuable services being offered to users at subsidized prices, often for free. As a result, the collection of user data by online providers is an important part of the competitive process and generates sizable consumer benefits. Because of these competitive benefits, virtually all online providers collect data from users (from tracking user activity on their own sites, “data brokers,” and various other sources) in order to improve and monetize their services. The collection and use of customer data is commonplace not only for online firms, but for traditional offline (“brick-and-mortar”) businesses. The collection of user data is conducted by firms of all sizes, by firms offering a wide array of services to users, and by both new entrants and established players. 5. Although the collection of user data is generally valuable for online providers, the conclusion that such benefits of user data lead to significant returns to scale and to the entrenchment of dominant online platforms is based on unsupported assumptions. Although, in theory, control of an “essential” input can lead to the exclusion of rivals, a careful analysis of 6 Al Franken, “How Privacy Has Become an Antitrust Issue,” Huffington Post,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 71 Issue 3 Article 7 4-2020 Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly Alicia Ginsberg Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alicia Ginsberg, Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly, 71 HASTINGS L.J. 783 (2020). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol71/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly † ALICIA GINSBERG Congress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 to promote competition and creativity in the marketplace. The Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain trade and lays out rules regarding monopoly power. This Note explores three distinct theories under which Google, one of the most successful technology companies in the world, could be found to have violated the Sherman Act. Specifically, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Google “ties” its products together and forces mobile device manufacturers to sign exclusive dealing agreements preventing them from purchasing products from Google’s competitors. Further, Google’s systematic obstruction of competing Android operating systems is a form of anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Refusal to License Intellectual Property Rights As an Abuse Of
    Vol. 2 of 2 Refusal to License Intellectual Property Rights as an Abuse of Dominance under EU Competition Law: What is the Best Solution for Legal Certainty from a Rule of Law Perspective? By Marwa Marwan Shafiq Narmiq A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire October 2019 The law is stated as at 30th November 2018 and all the internet sources mentioned in the thesis were accessible as at end of November 2018. © Marwa Narmiq, 2018 1 LIST OF CASES WTO REPORT WTO Panel Report, Argentina: Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hide and the Import of Finished (Argentina-Hide and Leather)- Panel Report (February 2001) WT/DS155/R WTO AB Reports, EC: Export Subsidies on Sugar (28 April 2005) WT/DS265/266/283/AB/R WTO AB Reports, EC: Pipe Fittings (22 July 2003) WT/DS/219/AB/R WTO AB Reports, EC: Sardines (26 September 2002) WT/DS231/AB/R WTO Panel Report, Japan: Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper (Japan-Film)- Panel Report (April 1998) WT/DS44/R WTO AB Reports, Korea: Beef (11 December 2000) WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R WTO AB Reports Mexico: Corn Syrup (22 October 2001) WT/DS132/AB/RW WTO Panel Report, Mexico: Telecoms (2 April 2004) WT/DS204/R WTO AB Reports Thailand: H-Beams (12 March 2001) WT/DS122/AB/R 2 WTO AB Reports, United States: Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline-Report of the Appellate Body (29 April 1996) AB-19996-1 and WT/DS2/AB/R WTO AB Reports US: Cotton Yarn (8 October 2001) WT/DS192/AB/R WTO AB Reports, US: FSC (24 February 2000) WT/DS108/AB/R WTO AB Reports, US: Hot Rolled Steel (24 July 2001) WT/DS184/AB/R WTO AB Reports, US: Lamb (1 May 2001) WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R WTO AB Reports, U.S: Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (2 January 2002) WT/DS176/AB/R EU CASES AstraZeneca AB (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3) [2005] OJ L332/24 Case T-342/99, Airtours v Commission [2002] 5 C.M.L.R 7 Case C-62/86 AKZO v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1991:286 Case C- 245/02 Anheuser-Busch v.
    [Show full text]
  • Google's Transformation from Gateway To
    GOOGLE’S TRANSFORMATION FROM GATEWAY TO GATEKEEPER: HOW GOOGLE’S EXCLUSIONARY AND ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT RESTRICTS INNOVATION AND DECEIVES CONSUMERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approximately 240 million people in the United States regularly use the Internet, and last year their activity generated nearly $170 billion in commerce – making the Internet a linchpin of our economy, our society, and of everyday life. Maintaining a competitive environment in which investment and innovation can thrive on the Internet therefore should be a core public policy goal. Yet today, anticompetitive actions of the monopolist search engine, Google, put that goal at serious risk. Search engines are among the most critical actors on the Internet. With more than one trillion webpages on the Internet and more appearing every day, search is the principal means by which consumers find online businesses and online businesses find consumers amidst an otherwise crowded and confusing landscape. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that as of May 2011, 92% of adults online use search engines to find information on the Internet. In July 2011 alone, there were over 17.1 billion search queries conducted in the United States, up 3% from the prior month. Google controlled at least seven out of every ten of those searches. As antitrust authorities and courts here in the U.S. and abroad have repeatedly concluded, Google has market power in search, giving this single company unprecedented power over what users find, who is found, and what businesses must pay to be found on the Internet. Having gained a monopoly in Internet search and search advertising, Google also has come to control nearly 97% of the fast-growing mobile search market.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairness-Aware Machine Learning an Extensive Overview
    Fairness-Aware Machine Learning An Extensive Overview Jannik Dunkelau( ) and Michael Leuschel Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Universitätsstraße 1 · 40225 Düsseldorf [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. We provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in fairness- aware machine learning and examine a wide variety of research articles in the area. We survey different fairness notions, algorithms for pre-, in-, and post-processing of the data and models, and provide an overview of available frameworks. Keywords: Fairness · Algorithmic Fairness · Machine Learning · Survey Version Date Modifications 00 05.07.2019 Create repository 01 17.10.2019 First version of survey Table of Contents 1 Introduction . .2 1.1 Legal Motivation . .3 1.2 Types and Causes of Discrimination . .4 1.3 Causes for Machine Bias . .6 2 Related Work . .7 3 Necessary Nomenclature . .9 3.1 Machine Learning Nomenclature . .9 3.2 Fairness Nomenclature . 11 4 Mathematical Notation . 12 5 Notions of Fairness . 13 5.1 Unawareness . 14 5.2 Group fairness . 14 5.3 Predictive Parity . 16 5.4 Calibration . 19 5.5 Individual Fairness . 20 5.6 Preference-Based Fairness . 21 5.7 Causality . 22 5.8 Note on the Selection of Fairness Metrics . 23 6 Pre-Processing: Discrimination-free Training Data . 24 2 J. Dunkelau et al. 6.1 Relabelling . 24 6.2 Resampling . 25 6.3 Fair Representations . 26 6.4 Further Algorithms . 27 7 In-Processing: Discrimination-aware Learners . 28 7.1 Adjusted Learning Algorithms . 28 7.2 Adapted Loss Function . 29 7.3 Adversarial Approaches . 31 7.4 Optimisation Subject to Fairness Constraints .
    [Show full text]
  • Search, Antitrust, and the Economics of the Control of User Data
    Search, Antitrust, and the Economics of the Control of User Data Nathan Newmant This Article argues for reorienting many antitrust investigations-and more generally regulatory approaches-tofocus on how control of personal data by corporations can entrench monopoly power in an economy shaped increasingly by the power of "big data." What is largely missed in analyses defending Google from antitrust action is how Google's ever expanding control of user personal data and its critical value to online advertisers creates an insurmountable barrierto entry for new competition. Moreover, Google did not just inherit that business advantage through its innovation in search engine technology. Rather, Google has aggressively expanded its control of user data both by moving into new product sectors to collect additionaluser data and by invading users'privacy. Introduction: The Undermining of Competition in Online Markets...............402 A. How Google Uses Controlof User Information to Strengthen its Monopoly........... ................... ............. 405 B. The Antitrust Case Against Google ........................... 407 C. Remedies and the Argumentfor Aggressive and Earlier Regulatory Intervention.......................... 411 I. How Google Dominates the Search Advertising Market.. ............. 412 A. How the Search Advertising Market Works ......... ........ 413 B. Measuring Google's Dominance.....................414 C. Why Search Advertising is the Relevant Marketfor Antitrust Analysis ......................................... 416 D. Google's
    [Show full text]
  • Alford Final Proof
    Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better––Except in Big Tech?: Antitrust’s New Inhospitality Tradition Elyse Dorsey* Anything you can do, I can do better I can do anything better than you No, you can’t Yes, I can No, you can’t. Yes, I can! Yes, I can!1 INTRODUCTION Competition is deeply woven into the fabric of our American heritage. No small amount of competitive spirit helped drive the Founders’ efforts to design and to establish “a more perfect Union”2—a unique political structure intended to improve upon what the world had observed to date. That competitive spirit drove us to push and to expand boundaries of all sorts over the last (nearly) 250 years. It manifests in scientific, mathematic, medical, and technological developments and other academic endeavors; in ubiquitous athletic programs; and even in our art and entertainment, including in the lyrics to Broadway musicals. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that competition has also been a foundational principle guiding the American economy since its inception.3 Competition has been the primary code by which firms live and die, succeed and fail, win and lose. This code has led directly to tremendous achievements that revolutionized not only our country, but the world— such as the Ford assembly line, which transformed an industry; the advent * Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. I would like to thank John Yun, Roger Alford, Thom Lambert, Jessica Dutra, Kristian Stout and Josh Wright for valuable discussion on these (and many other) issues. I would also like to thank the Kansas Law Review Board for hosting this symposium and for providing an invaluable opportunity to discuss these important issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Telling Timeline of Google Guardian's Government Influence
    10/25/2017 Scott Cleland, Precursor LLC Telling Timeline of Google Guardian’s Government Influence Note: Bolded entire sections spotlight likely improper Google government influence. Top Takeaways 1. Neutralization of Google’s Federal Law Enforcement Risks in Antitrust, IP, & Privacy 2. Extension of Google’s Monopoly to Android & the Mobile Ecosystem 3. Elimination of Much Direct Competition to Google 4. Winner-take-all is consumer-down-fall 2008 1. DOJ blocks Google-Yahoo Ad Agreement with threat of monopolization case against Google: November 5, 2008, the W. Bush DOJ threatened a Sherman Section 1 & 2 antitrust case against Google to block the proposed Google-Yahoo ad agreement. Importantly, the DOJ “concluded that Google and Yahoo would have become collaborators rather than competitors… materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies.” [Bold added.] “The Department's investigation revealed that Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are each relevant antitrust markets and that Google is by far the largest provider of such services, with shares of more than 70 percent in both markets. Yahoo! is by far Google's most significant competitor in both markets, with combined market shares of 90 percent and 95 percent in the search advertising and search syndication markets, respectively.” 2009 2. FTC urged Google CEO Schmidt to resign from Apple’s Board as anticompetitive: August 3, 2009, the FTC forced Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt off Apple’s board as an anti-competitive opportunity for collusion because “because Google and Apple increasingly compete with each other” (i.e. via iPhone and Android smartphone competition). 2010 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Definition in the Google Android Case
    http://lib.ulg.ac.be http://matheo.ulg.ac.be Market Definition in the Google Android Case Auteur : Lamesch, Joé Promoteur(s) : Gautier, Axel Faculté : HEC-Ecole de gestion de l'ULg Diplôme : Master en sciences économiques, orientation générale, à finalité spécialisée en Economic Analysis and Public Governance Année académique : 2015-2016 URI/URL : http://hdl.handle.net/2268.2/1812 Avertissement à l'attention des usagers : Tous les documents placés en accès ouvert sur le site le site MatheO sont protégés par le droit d'auteur. Conformément aux principes énoncés par la "Budapest Open Access Initiative"(BOAI, 2002), l'utilisateur du site peut lire, télécharger, copier, transmettre, imprimer, chercher ou faire un lien vers le texte intégral de ces documents, les disséquer pour les indexer, s'en servir de données pour un logiciel, ou s'en servir à toute autre fin légale (ou prévue par la réglementation relative au droit d'auteur). Toute utilisation du document à des fins commerciales est strictement interdite. Par ailleurs, l'utilisateur s'engage à respecter les droits moraux de l'auteur, principalement le droit à l'intégrité de l'oeuvre et le droit de paternité et ce dans toute utilisation que l'utilisateur entreprend. Ainsi, à titre d'exemple, lorsqu'il reproduira un document par extrait ou dans son intégralité, l'utilisateur citera de manière complète les sources telles que mentionnées ci-dessus. Toute utilisation non explicitement autorisée ci-avant (telle que par exemple, la modification du document ou son résumé) nécessite l'autorisation préalable et expresse des auteurs ou de leurs ayants droit.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Mermoz News …
    Retrouvez très vite en dernière page notre rubrique « Pause INFO’MATIQUE : détente », qui saura vous faire patienter jusqu’aux vacances, qui . Le dernier smartphone à la mode débutent vendredi 26 avril. Google : la fin ? LE MERMOZ NEWS … … SURVOLE L’INFO ! NUMERO 2 - Mail du collège : http://www.clg-mermoz-savigny.ac-versailles.fr - E-sidoc (CDI) : http://0910716j.esidoc.fr - 19 avril 2013 Les vacances de printemps arrivent FIL’ACTU’ et nous tenions à vous divertir un Le mariage pour tous ? peu avec ce nouveau numéro du Deux camps s’opposent ! Mermoz News, spécial Vacances. « HANAMI » : découvrez la fête des fleurs L’école ouverte : c’est quoi ? Deux élèves témoignent ACTU’MODE Ce mois-ci, vous verrez que la mode s’intéresse à vos petits « petons » : comme on dit, « tout le monde peut trouver chaussure à son pied » Editorial C'est enfin le printemps. Il faisait froid et triste, on gardait les manteaux et les bonnets. Même le INSOLITE Mermoz News hibernait durant cette période : les élèves de troisième étaient en stage en entreprise, puis il y a eu les vacances, l'école ouverte... plein d'autres choses qui nous ont occupés. Les blagues des Enfin nous pouvons vous présenter notre dernier numéro, que vous pourrez emporter avec vous « Carambar » sont pendant les prochaines vacances : des infos, des photos, du sport, de l'informatique, et les menacées : info ou intox ? habituelles rubriques jeux et horoscope, concoctés par l'équipe du journal. Fin mars, durant la Semaine de la presse, l'équipe a d'ailleurs participé avec enthousiasme à un Et aussi : concours de Unes.
    [Show full text]
  • Powrót Do Idei Sprzed Lat: Idea Swobodnego Przepływu Informacji
    Uniwersytet Warszawski Wydział Dziennikarstwa i Nauk Politycznych mgr Michał Olędzki Udział wyszukiwarek internetowych w realizacji idei swobodnego przepływu informacji. Analiza działalności wyszukiwarki Google Rozprawa doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem prof. dr. hab. Wiesława Władyki Warszawa 2016 Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Polska (CC-BY) Spis treści Wprowadzenie ..................................................................................................................... 4 Rozdział 1. Idea swobodnego przepływu informacji ...................................................... 15 1.1. Historia koncepcji swobodnego przepływu informacji .............................................. 15 1.1.1. Początki idei swobodnego przepływu informacji .......................................... 17 1.1.2. Idea zrównoważonego przepływu informacji – kontrpropozycja krajów Trzeciego Świata i państw bloku sowieckiego .............................................. 19 1.1.3. Współczesna koncepcja swobodnego przepływu informacji ........................ 22 1.2. Swobodny przepływ informacji w dobie Internetu .................................................... 28 1.2.1. Formy realizacji idei swobodnego przepływu informacji w dobie Internetu 35 1.2.2. Ruchy społeczne na rzecz realizowania idei swobodnego przepływu informacji na świecie ..................................................................................... 41 1.2.3. Przeszkody w realizacji idei swobodnego przepływu informacji na świecie za pomocą
    [Show full text]
  • Forget Remedies – Fairsearch Doesn’T Even Have A
    Forget remedies – FairSearch doesn’t even have a valid statement of harm in its Google antitrust criticism November 20, 2012 Geoffrey A. Manne After more than a year of complaining about Google and being met with responses from me (see also here, here, here, here, and here, among others) and many others that these complaints have yet to offer up a rigorous theory of antitrust injury — let alone any evidence — FairSearch yesterday offered up its preferred remedies aimed at addressing, in its own words, “the fundamental conflict of interest driving Google’s incentive and ability to engage in anti-competitive conduct. [by putting an] end [to] Google’s preferencing of its own products ahead of natural search results.” Nothing in the post addresses the weakness of the organization’s underlying claims, and its proposed remedies would be damaging to consumers. FairSearch’s first and core “abuse” is “[d]iscriminatory treatment favoring Google’s own vertical products in a manner that may harm competing vertical products.” To address this it proposes prohibiting Google from preferencing its own content in search results and suggests as additional, “structural remedies” “[r]equiring Google to license data” and “[r]equiring Google to divest its vertical products that have benefited from Google’s abuses.” Tom Barnett, former AAG for antitrust, counsel to FairSearch member Expedia, and FairSearch’s de facto spokesman should be ashamed to be associated with claims and proposals like these. He better than many others knows that harm to competitors is not the issue under US antitrust laws. Rather, US antitrust law requires a demonstration that consumers — not just rivals — will be harmed by a challenged practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadmap for a Monopolization Case Against Google Regarding the Search Market
    Roadmap for a Monopolization Case Against Google Regarding the Search Market June 2020 Fiona M. Scott Morton David C. Dinielli Biographies Fiona M. Scott Morton is the Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at the Yale University School of Management (SOM) where she has been on the faculty since 1999. Her area of academic research is industrial organization, with a focus on empirical studies of competition. The focus of her current research is competition in healthcare markets and the economics of antitrust. From 2011-12 Professor Scott Morton served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis (Chief Economist) at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where she helped enforce the nation’s antitrust laws. At Yale SOM she teaches courses in the area of competitive strategy and antitrust economics. She served as Associate Dean from 2007-10 and has won the School’s teaching award three times. She founded and directs the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale, a vehicle to provide more antitrust programming and policy projects to Yale students. Professor Scott Morton has a BA from Yale and a PhD from MIT, both in Economics. She is a frequent speaker at seminars and conferences across the United States Fiona M. Scott Morton and Europe. Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics Yale University School of Management As a senior advisor with the beneficial technology team at Omidyar Network, David is focused on developing a robust analytic framework for antitrust litigation and regulation designed to reduce the competitive, democratic, and other harms caused by big tech companies.
    [Show full text]