MEPs held a press conference this week to discuss the ongoing Google antitrust case, including Ramon Tremosa i Balcells of the ALDE group and Andreas Schwab of the EPP.
The EU's antitrust investigation in to Google has been underway for nearly five years, during that time the company has evolved rapidly from being predominantly a search engine firm and expanded into numerous sectors with far reaching penetration, such as emails, maps and shopping.
However, what concerns the European commission is Google's dominance of the search engine and mobile phone markets in Europe, with Schwab highlighting that, "more than 90 per cent of all searches are done with Google and if you add to that 60 per cent of all smart phones are running on Android".
"More than 90 per cent of all searches are done with Google and if you add to that 60 per cent of all smart phones are running on Android"
The commission is also concerned with the way results are displayed, with Google's own products being promoted before, and arguably to the detriment, of competitors. The commission, during the course of its talks with Google, has discussed several solutions known as 'remedies' provided by Google that would modify the search engine's results to make them 'fairer' to competitors.
To date, three sets of remedies have been developed by Google and rejected by the commission. Balcells explained it was unlikely that a fourth set of remedies would solve the issue, saying, "In my opinion I do not have much confidence in a fourth set of remedies provided by Google".
The EU views the US search engine market as a model to emulate, where Google faces real competition from companies such as Yelp and Yahoo. The MEPs described Google's position as a 'de facto monopoly' in Europe, with the suggestion that it has become an 'essential facility'.
Regarding the commission's situation, Andreas Schwab said, "If the European commission isn't able to go for a settlement there is still the possibility to offer a statement of objection, one key question within that is […] if Google is an essential facility".
Schwab added, "An essential facility in counter law and antitrust law means a situation where you are already obliged to use this service or institution because you have no alternative. That's a very difficult question, and what we observe is that not all DGs in the commission have the same approach to this question."
"In my opinion, if the threat of a fine, in the context of a statement of objections, is necessary to push Google to change its behaviour, I would be in favour of it"
Schwab also elaborated on the legislative status of the search engine market, saying, "Currently we are debating in the commission and the council as to whether Google or the search engines market should be part of this new regulation […] [and if] Google and the search engines are a critical infrastructure for the European Union."
He also said, "From my point of view it is not possible to defend in one directive, the point that Google is not already a critical infrastructure […] in this case, we cannot regulate and we have to rely on the antitrust procedure. I personally believe that the antitrust procedure is the most effective way to deal with the case."
Noting that the commission is having trouble dealing with Google's market share, Schwab also explained that alternative actions were available. Schwab said, "If the commission has problems in tackling the case in antitrust procedure only, we also have in our hands possibilities to come up with regulations. That is a very difficult choice that has to be made but we have to start to debate."
Balcells was similarly unconvinced that a solution with Google could be reached without taking stronger action, saying, "In my opinion, if the threat of a fine, in the context of a statement of objections, is necessary to push Google to change its behaviour, I would be in favour of it".
In addition, the MEPs also presented their own solution to the search engine results mechanism. Their idea involves the rotation of links from competitors and the reduction in visibility of Google's own products. With each rotation, the primary link would be replaced by the secondary, and so on and so forth, with the hope that this would result in 'a more level playing field'.
However, according to the MEPs there has not been any contact with Google regarding this solution or the case since prior to the European elections. Balcells said, "I have no idea because we met Google before the elections and after the elections we have not had any new contacts".
Lastly, the MEPs defended their position, saying, "We don't want to punish Google but we think there needs to be a level playing field to allow other European companies to develop their own business model."