Should Google be required to change its search results? Let us know what you think in the comments.

The Commission is seeking feedback on the commitments Google has offered to address concerns.

On why it feels the need to intervene, the Commission says, “In high-tech markets in particular, network effects may lead to entrenched market positions. Google has had a strong position in web search in most European countries for a number of years now. It does not seem likely that another web search service will replace it as European users’ web search service of choice.”

“In this context, it is important for the Commission to intervene in order to ensure that Google’s prominent market position in web search does not affect the possibility for other competitors to innovate in neighbouring markets, including in the long-term,” it adds.

The Commission views Google as dominant in search and search advertising, and says it is abusing its dominant position in four areas: specialized search, content usage, exclusivity agreements with publishers for the provision of online search advertising on their sites, and contractual restrictions on the portability and management of online search advertising campaigns across AdWords and competing platforms.

Google has, of course, settled similar concerns here in the U.S. with the Federal Trade Commission, where it agreed to let sites remove content from specialized search results pages while allowing them to keep results in regular Google results (they recently released a tool for this), and to enable advertisers to “mix and copy ad campaign data” within third-party services that use the AdWords API.

Some competitors felt that the settlement did not go far enough. The proposal in Europe goes further. Here is the list of Google’s proposals verbatim (per the EU’s announcement):

Google offers for a period of 5 years to:

(iv) no longer impose obligations that would prevent advertisers from managing search advertising campaigns across competing advertising platforms.

A third party would be required to monitor Google’s implementation of its commitments.

Already, despite the increased responsibilities on Google’s part, competitors don’t think the proposals go far enough this time either.

Interestingly, FairSearch, the group of Google competitors, which has been most vocal about its opposition to Google’s practices since its incarnation when Google announced its intent to acquire ITA software three years ago, issued a statement on the market test before the EU’s document came out.

“The most important remedy to Google’s abuse of dominance is to require the search monopoly, which controls 94 percent of the market in Europe, to subject its own products and services to the same policy it uses to rank and display all other Websites,” the group said. “Since it has taken a year to extract a final proposal from Google, FairSearch believes the ‘market test’ should last three months to ensure that interested parties have enough time to carefully provide the European Commission with their expertise on the effectiveness of Google’s proposal. As we have said, we will comment on Google’s proposed remedies after the Commission shares them.”

FairSearch intends to study the “effects” of Google’s proposal, and has implied that it will have more suggestions for how to make things better.

Separately, FairSearch recently filed a complaint with the EU saying that Google is using its Android operating system to give it an additional unfair advantage in search. This is not addressed in Google’s current proposals, but the EU isn’t ignoring it. Here’s what the commission had to say about “other Google-related allegations”:

This process covers the four competition concerns that have been investigated as a matter of priority. The Commission is, however, thoroughly examining all other allegations brought to its attention by different market players with a view to deciding whether or not a further investigation of those issues is warranted. Google’s Android related business practices are part of those issues.

To be continued…

All those concerned with Google’s current proposals have a month to submit their feedback to the EU.

Do Google’s proposals go far enough? Should Google even be required to do all of what it has proposed? Will this help competitors significantly? Will it hurt Google significantly? We want to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Ahead of the release, the FairSearch Coalition (a group of Google competitors – including chief rival Microsoft – hellbent on seeing Google’s business regulated by governments) issued a statement indicating it would likely have more suggestions for how Google could go beyond its proposals to make things better for its competitors. Now, the group has put out another statement.

Thomas Vinje, counsel and spokesman for FairSearch Europe had this to say:

“FairSearch applauds the Commission for laying out a clear and compelling case that Google is abusing its dominant position by giving its own products preferential treatment in search results. This is an important conclusion that must lead to meaningful remedies. We have always said that the best remedy for consumers and innovation would be to require Google to apply the same policy to search results for its own products as it does to all others.”

“However, Google’s proposed commitments appear to fall short of ending the preferential treatment at the heart of the Commission’s case based on formal complaints from 17 companies. Google’s own screen shots in its proposal (see p. 30) shows it seeks approval to continue preferential treatment for its own products. We will study the proposal in detail and offer an empirical analysis based on actual tests.”

Page 30? Okay, let’s take a look:

Look at that. Google Shopping results right at the top for a search for “dslr camera”. Perhaps they should be doing it the way FairSearch member Microsoft does it:

Oh, wait a minute.

It’s almost as if a search engine offering its own shopping results for product queries is the industry standard:

Under the proposal, as it’s being reported, Google will label its own results, and it will show competitors’ links in cases where it shows its on results. The New York Times reports:

Google will not have to change the algorithm that produces its search results, the people said. Under the proposal, Google agrees to clearly label search results from its own properties, like Google Plus Local or Google News, and in some cases to show links from rival search engines.

…

In areas where Google does not make money from search results, like weather or news, the company will label the results as Google-owned properties. In areas where Google sells ads, like local business reviews, it will show links to at least three competitors. In areas in which all search results are paid ads, like shopping, Google will auction links to rivals.

Like in the U.S., Google will also have to give sites a way to keep their content from being included in vertical search results while letting them stay in regular search results. According to the Times, sites will be able to keep portions (as much as 10%) of their content out of Google so users are compelled to visit the site. It gives the example of Yelp keeping out business hours.

Additionally, Google is reportedly agreeing to be policed by an unknown third party, and will face fines if it doesn’t comply with the terms. This will go on for five years.

With the proposal, Google will avoid a lengthy and costly legal battle in Europe.

According to Bloomberg, Google competitors aren’t happy with the details of Google’s proposal that have surfaced, despite going significantly further than the concessions made in the U.S.

Last week, FairSearch announced a complaint with the EU claiming that Android gives Google an unfair advantage in search. More on that here.

Last month, Google released an opt-out tool for sites to keep content out of its vertical search engines.

Google is actually currently facing a lawsuit in the UK alleging that it buries competitors’ results. A new report from Bloomberg says maps provider Streetmap filed a suit against the search giant last month:

Streetmap said its complaint mirrors an antitrust probe by the European Union into whether Google favors its own services over competitors in search results.

“We have had to take this action in an effort to protect our business and attract attention to those that, like us, have started their own technology businesses, only to find them damaged by Google’s cynical manipulation of search results,” Kate Sutton, commercial director of Streetmap, said in the statement.

Other Google competitors (in the form of the Fairsearch Coalition) recently filed a complaint with the EU against Google, claiming that it is using its Android operating system to create an unfair advantage for its search business, despite the fact that competitors like Facebook and Amazon directly use Android in their own offerings.

The Financial Times is now reporting (via TechCrunch) that Google will likely bow to regulatory pressure by taking measures to more prominently show results from competing vertical search engines.

The publication reports:

One of the European Commission’s primary concerns, according to officials involved, is the visibility in search results of rival so-called “vertical search” services – in areas such as maps, finance or weather – that may provide more relevant results to a query.

This specific finding indicates that alongside widely expected concessions to more clearly label Google’s own services, the US group will also need to offer solutions that give more prominence to rival specialist search services and consumers clearer alternatives.

While it remains to be seen if this will actually happen, this would go significantly further than Google’s concessions in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigation.

Should Google be required to give competing services more visibility in its own search results, even if it hurts the user experience?

The New York Times reported this week that EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia said he’s receiving proposals from Google this week. While Almunia has not commented on the angle, a new complaint was filed by Google competitors claiming that the company unfairly uses Android to help its search business.

Do you think Android gives Google an unfair advantage in search? Share your thoughts in the comments.

FairSearch says:

FairSearch.org has filed a complaint with the European Commission laying out Google’s anti-competitive strategy to dominate the mobile marketplace and cement its control over consumer Internet data for online advertising as usage shifts to mobile.

“Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data,” said Thomas Vinje, Brussels-based counsel to the FairSearch coalition. “We are asking the Commission to move quickly and decisively to protect competition and innovation in this critical market. Failure to act will only embolden Google to repeat its desktop abuses of dominance as consumers increasingly turn to a mobile platform dominated by Google’s Android operating system.”

The organization continues, “Google achieved its dominance in the smartphone operating system market by giving Android to device-makers for ‘free.’ But in reality, Android phone makers who want to include must-have Google apps such as Maps, YouTube or Play are required to pre-load an entire suite of Google mobile services and to give them prominent default placement on the phone, the complaint says. This disadvantages other providers, and puts Google’s Android in control of consumer data on a majority of smartphones shipped today.”

FairSearch goes on to call Google’s distribution of Android “predatory”.

The New York Times reports that EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia said he’s receiving proposals from Google this week aimed at clearing up concerns about search practices, as he has been leading an investigation into them. The Times says he’s not commenting on the Android complaint from FairSearch, but noted that the EU has been looking into Android separately.

The timing of this complaint from FairSearch is interesting, given that just days ago, Facebook introduced the Android-specific “Facebook Home,” which lets Android users have a Facebook app that dominates the device, and pushes everything else (including Google apps and even search) into the background. Clearly some Google competitors are not only finding ways to compete on Android, but are even making the basis for their new mobile strategies Android-specific.

Even if Facebook Home doesn’t directly compete in search right now, Mark Zuckerberg has indicated that Graph Search will make its way to the product in time. Remember, that hasn’t even rolled out to mobile yet. It’s also worth noting that vertical search services, particularly on mobile, have already shown they can chip away at Google searches. Facebook, for that matter, recently renamed the “Nearby” feature in its mobile app to “Local Search”.

Amazon, which is arguably Google’s biggest competitor outside of Microsoft, also uses Android to its own benefit. It is the basis for the operating system upon which its Kindle Fire devices run. Amazon has taken advantage of Google’s “open” Android platform to even build its own app store, independent of Google Play. It is this “open” nature of Android, which Zuckerberg specifically praised during a press event introducing Facebook Home.

So, one way to look at Android’s effect on competition is that it directly enables competitors to take on Google with their own offerings.

FairSearch consists of 17 companies whose members including Microsoft, Oracle, Expedia, Nokia, and TripAdvisor. Microsoft, by the way, isn’t very happy about Facebook Home either. Considering Bing’s partnership with Facebook, perhaps that will change once Graph Search makes its way to it.

Meanwhile, Microsoft just kicked off a new “Scroogled” campaign against Google. In other iterations, Microsoft has attacked Google Shopping in Gmail. This time it’s none other than Android, but not for the same reasons highlighted in its EU complaint. The Scroogled campaign aims to convince consumers that there are privacy concerns when using Android, and specifically the Google Play store.

“When you buy an Android app from the Google app store, they give the app maker your full name, email address and the neighborhood where you live. This occurs without clear warning every single time you buy an app,” the campaign goes. “If you can’t trust Google’s app store, how can you trust them for anything?”

I wonder if that goes for any of the initiatives that the two companies have partnered on together.

Is Google as evil as Microsoft makes it out to be? Is Android specifically? Let us know what you think.

Reuters reports that the EU has hit Microsoft with a massive $731 million fine for violating the browser choice agreement of 2009. The regulators estimated that Microsoft’s violation left up to 15 million users without a choice in which browser they choose.

The fine, while pretty drastic, could have been even worse. A report from last year found that the EU could have fined Microsoft up to 10 percent of its turnover, or $7 billion. The actual fine is still pretty formidable, however, and the EU’s competition commission hopes that it deters other companies from violating their commitments.

“If companies agree to offer commitments which then become legally binding, they must do what they have committed to do or face the consequences,” said Joaquin Almunia, the EU’s competition commissioner. “I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance.”

Microsoft can appeal the decision, but it looks like the company will not do so. The company did say, however, that it has “taken steps to strengthen [their] software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake – or anything similar – in the future.”

Now that Microsoft is out of the way, the EU can focus its efforts on Google. The search giant got away without a fine from the FTC over allegations of antitrust practices in its search results. Now the company is under the same scrutiny in the EU, but we won’t know the commission’s decision until after summer.

As you may know, Google has already settled its antitrust issues in the U.S., at least for the time being. The FTC ended its probe last month.

Bloomberg reports:

Google sent a “detailed proposal,” said Antoine Colombani, a spokesman for Almunia. He said he couldn’t anticipate if the offer was sufficient to allay antitrust concerns or whether it would be sent to rivals and customers for comments. If this market test is successful, the EU can make the commitments legally binding. Such a settlement would avoid possible fines against the Mountain View, California-based company.

It will be interesting to see what the rivals make of it. These rivals were not all that pleased with the FTC settlement, saying that it did not go far enough. FairSearch, whose 17 members in the U.S., Europe and South America include Expedia, KAYAK, Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle, and represent the largest group of formal complainants to the EC, has already released a statement ahead of its analysis. You can read the whole thing at the end of this article.

Meanwhile, Jon Leibowitz, the FTC Chairman who led the Google probe back in the U.S. has announced his resignation after four years in the role. He will step down on February 15. He’s been a commissioner since 2004.

“I have been honored to head this extraordinary, bipartisan Commission and to work alongside the best staff in federal government,” he said. “Our small but mighty agency has safeguarded the privacy of Americans and stopped predatory financial practices by companies taking advantage of cash-strapped consumers. Our antitrust enforcement has helped contain health care and drug costs, and helped reduce prices and increase innovation for smartphones, computer chips and other high-tech products.”

Google is mentioned several times throughout his lengthy resignation announcement:

Most recently, the Commission announced a landmark agreement with Google to ensure consumers would continue to be able to buy a variety of high-tech devices from smartphones to games to tablets. The settlement gives competitors access to standard-essential patents, and ensures that companies that advertise on Google’s website will have more flexibility to use rival search engines.

…

During the last few years, Leibowitz has worked to raise the profile of privacy practices through law enforcement, consumer education and policy initiatives. FTC settlement orders against Google and Facebook let the companies move on and innovate for consumers while requiring comprehensive privacy programs and affirmative choice for material privacy changes, and prohibiting privacy misrepresentations.

…

The FTC also took steps to rein in the alleged misuse of standard-essential patents, which can lead to patent hold-up and ultimately higher prices for popular devices such as smart phones, laptop and tablet computers, and gaming consoles. The Commission made the case publicly – and through law enforcement actions such as the Google consent decree – that companies should be restricted from seeking injunctions on standard-essential patents if they are bound by prior commitments to license their standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.

Some critics of the FTC/Google settlement indicated that they felt Leibowitz had rushed through the Google Probe and the decision, as to get it done before Leibowitz’s imminent resignation.

Here’s the statement FairSearch emailed us about Google’s settlement proposal in Europe:

What to look for in Google’s offer to the European Commission

The deal should also include a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism administered by a third-party monitor, to ensure that the settlement ends Google’s search bias and other practices identified by Commissioner Almunia as potential abuses of dominance.

As you may know, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced last week that it did not find Google’s search business to be in violation of U.S. antitrust laws, but that the company was making a couple of voluntary changes. More on all of that here.

The European Commission, however, believes Google is “diverting traffic” to its own services, and that it will be forced to change the way it presents search results in Europe or face charges. EU competition chief Joaquin Almunia said as much in an interview with the Financial Times (registration required).The publication quotes him as saying:

“They are monetising this kind of business, the strong position they have in the general search market and this is not only a dominant position, I think – I fear – there is an abuse of this dominant position.”

Bloomberg, meanwhile, reports that Foundem, which has been complaining about Google’s practices for years, and in fact filed a complaint with the EU, which led to the investigation, filed a suit against the company in October, with court documents being released this week.

Hat tip to Danny Sullivan.

The Register reports that the European Commission has pulled its request for the European Court of Justice to review ACTA. After pulling it, the commission stated that there was “no realistic chance” of the treaty ever gaining ground in Europe. The statement marks the official end of a fight against a treaty that Europeans fought tooth and nail against.

Although ACTA may be dead in Europe, the treaty lives in other nations around the world. The U.S. has claimed ACTA is a “sole executive agreement” that is binding after President Obama signed the treaty in late 2011 despite only Congress having the power to approve treaties. The treaty has not taken effect, however, and its death in Europe pretty much kills it in the U.S.

The treaty has, however, been ratified in one country. Back in September, Japan’s House of Representatives ratified the treaty in the middle of the night so there would be no blowback from the country’s citizens that are already prone to protests. The new conservative government that was just elected, however, may revisit the ratification.

Despite all of this, the ghost of ACTA still lingers in some parts of the world. Some of the worst parts of ACTA have made their way into CETA, or the Canada-European Trade Agreement. The treaty has faced little resistance, and it looks like it may pass by year’s end.