zurück zum Artikel

Google is running an illegal search engine business, says a US court. Now the plaintiff authorities are showing what verdict they are hoping for.

"Google is a monopolist and has acted as such to maintain its monopoly," a US federal judge ruled in August. Several of Google's search engine businesses are therefore illegal [1]. If this becomes legally binding, it will be a great success for the plaintiffs, namely the US government and the governments of almost all US states. They are now giving a preview of how they intend to deal with Google. If they can convince the court, it will be uncomfortable for the data company. However, it does not have to fear its total destruction.

According to the partial ruling, Google has a monopoly on general search engines, but not on specialized search engines; the company also has a monopoly in the sub-market of text advertising on general search engines. This alone would not be frowned upon, but according to the court, Google had illegally exploited these monopolies to hinder competition.

The plaintiffs have now outlined their expected proposal for a framework plan in a communication to the court. In this plan, the court's requirements are to focus on four areas: Google's measures to pre-install its search engine on devices and in software, including any payments to third parties; the generation and display of search results; the economies of scale in advertising and its monetization; and the collection and use of big data.

In each area, the plaintiffs reserve the right to take measures ranging from restrictions on Google's freedom of contract, non-discrimination requirements, obligations to cooperate and share data, to "structural" requirements. The latter refers to the spin-off of parts of the company. However, this particularly severe intervention is only mentioned twice in the further explanations, once as a punitive measure if Google does not comply with the other court conditions.

No pre-installation by Google

Otherwise, the document submitted to the court on Tuesday only mentions "structural" measures in relation to the pre-installation or otherwise prominent placement of the search engine on devices and in software. Google must be prevented from using offerings such as the Chrome browser, the Play app store or its Android operating system to give the search engine and related services an advantage over competitors. But even here, forcing the sale of parts of the Group is not the very first measure. Perhaps the proposed "restrictions or bans" on pre-installation contracts or revenue shares for the search engine will suffice.

The plaintiffs may also want to prohibit selection windows in which users can choose between Google and a necessarily limited number of other search engines. After all, the best-known brand almost always wins in such decisions. An obligation brought into play by the plaintiff US states fits in with this: an advertising campaign financed by Google that shows users how to choose the best search engine for their needs.

Disclosure of data and algorithms

The basis for a good search engine is data. Lots and lots of it. Recognizing this, the plaintiffs are thinking aloud about forcing Google to disclose its data – either in its entirety or for queries via defined interfaces (API). Third parties could then use the information to develop competitive search engines and other services. This includes not only raw data but also indices and algorithms created by Google, including AI models, search results and the information used to rank the search engine (ranking signals), "especially for search results on mobile" devices. Google could even have to disclose the advertising it displays in order to make it easier for competitors to build a competitive advertising business.

The governments want data protection concerns to be taken into account, but not misused as an excuse. If Google believes that it cannot sensibly share certain data with third parties, the data company itself should not be allowed to use or even store this data. The document also mentions further measures to "reduce the cost and complexity of indexing and storing data for competing general search engines", without being specific.

More opportunities for websites and advertisers

In order to prevent misconduct, especially in the development of new services with artificial intelligence, Google is to be prohibited from securing exclusive access to internet content. This is because individual website operators are usually dependent on the traffic brought in via Google's search engine, so they cannot risk alienating the company. In addition, Google is to be obliged to allow websites to prohibit the use of their content for artificial intelligence training or inclusion in artificial intelligence outputs.

The preview is particularly vague as regards measures to combat Google's particular market power in text advertising around general search engine results. In any case, the focus should be on economies of scale and new advertising methods with AI. In addition, Google will have to give advertisers more data and allow them not to use certain features, including the unsolicited expansion of set search terms.

Court to threaten punitive measures

In order to enforce the conditions, Google could have to finance a technical committee to be set up by the court and provide relevant documents and a responsible manager on an ongoing basis. Special mention is made of the storage of documents including internal chat messages, as Google has been caught illegally deleting chats with potentially incriminating content. Mandatory compliance training for employees also fits in with this.

In addition, the governments are imposing bans, according to which Google may not participate in competitors or their success and may not retaliate against anyone who uses the requirements or contributes to their enforcement. Finally, the court should put rods in Google's window: These means, including the forced sale of parts of the group, are to be applied if Google willfully or systematically violates requirements.

Details to follow

The plaintiffs emphasize that it is still too early for detailed proposals. On the one hand, a new "discovery" is currently underway, in which the plaintiffs are inspecting internal Google documents. On the other hand, the authorities want to give "interested" third parties the opportunity to comment. The topic should not only be the markets identified as relevant in the court proceedings, but also neighboring markets as well as the effects of conditions imposed by other courts. For example, the US Federal District Court for Northern California has just imposed restrictions on Google's Play Store [3].

Whatever the measures turn out to be: They are not only intended to help make up for the damage done so far, but also to prevent any attempts by Google to create new monopolies in search as well as advertising around search results. The governments leading the lawsuit repeatedly mention possible new service features with artificial intelligence (AI).

The governments want to present details in November, to which the court and Google can then respond. The plaintiffs then plan to prepare a revised version of their proposals by March 2025.

The court case relates to the search engine and advertising displayed on it. It is pending in the US Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, without a jury. There were originally two lawsuits there. One brought by the US government and eleven US states(USA et al v Google et al, Ref. 1:20-cv-03010), and one brought by virtually all other US states and some US territories(Colorado et al v Google et al, Ref. 1:20-cv-03715). The two lawsuits have been consolidated. The only US state not participating is Alabama.

• The Proposed Remedy Framework [4] in the original

[5]

(ds [6])

URL dieses Artikels:
https://www.heise.de/-9975887

Links in diesem Artikel:
[1] https://www.heise.de/news/US-Gericht-Google-missbraucht-Monopol-seiner-Suchmaschine-9824974.html?from-en=1
[2] https://www.heise.de/Datenschutzerklaerung-der-Heise-Medien-GmbH-Co-KG-4860.html
[3] https://www.heise.de/news/Google-Play-Richter-verfuegt-Auflagen-fuer-Googles-App-Geschaeft-in-den-USA-9968374.html?from-en=1
[4] https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/4/6/8/6/3/8/2/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205.1052.0_4.pdf
[5] https://www.heise.de/newsletter/anmeldung.html?id=ki-update&wt_mc=intern.red.ho.ho_nl_ki.ho.markenbanner.markenbanner
[6] mailto:ds@heise.de
[7] https://www.facebook.com/heiseonlineEnglish
[8] https://www.linkedin.com/company/104691972
[9] https://social.heise.de/@heiseonlineenglish
[10] https://www.heise.de/news/Illegale-Suchmaschinen-Geschaefte-Das-kommt-auf-Google-zu-9975868.html

Copyright © 2024 Heise Medien