When the European Commission recently announced yet another antitrust settlement with Google the matter appeared to be coming to an end. This was the third proposed settlement from Google but indications from EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia suggested that it was essentially final and only formalities remained to approve it.
Unlike the two previous settlement proposals, this one is reportedly not going to be subjected to a “market test” (formal review by rivals and critics) — although the European Commission will be accepting comments, apparently.
Google’s critics immediately slammed the conclusory nature of the EU settlement announcement. And in a press release yesterday, anti-Google lobbying group FairSearch.org called for another “market test” and comment period on the third proposal:
There’s a legitimate question about what sort of settlement would be accepted by anti-Google groups such as FairSearch. Some have argued these groups are just trying to prolong the antitrust inquiry as long as possible.
However it’s not just competitors who are upset. Reportedly several European Commissioners who must vote to approve Almunia’s request to make the settlement proposal binding, and thereby end the matter, have voiced displeasure and concern.
According to Bloomberg, EU Commissioners may force additional discussions or prevent the settlement in its current form from becoming final:
Just when the Google-EU antitrust matter appeared to be coming to a close it may not be. Some of the objecting EU Commissioners may ultimately be seeking a way to reduce Google’s market power. However regulatory intervention on the search results page is not only inappropriate it’s unlikely to succeed.
From a Google hawk perspective, a more “promising” arena for EU intervention may be Android and Google’s tight control over the world’s most popular operating system.
Contributing authors are invited to create content for Search Engine Land and are chosen for their expertise and contribution to the search community. Our contributors work under the oversight of the editorial staff and contributions are checked for quality and relevance to our readers. The opinions they express are their own.
