MOUNTAIN VIEW — Google will have a hard time emerging unscathed from the bull’s eye of the European Union, even if the search engine giant mounts a successful defense to the antitrust complaint filed against it Wednesday.
That’s because European regulators appear to be interested in more than simply resolving their five-year investigation into Google’s online search practices that led to Wednesday’s complaint. A separate probe into Google’s Android smartphone system, announced at the same time, promises to cast a larger cloud over the Mountain View company reminiscent of the costly and drawn-out U.S. and European investigations of Microsoft that began in the 1990s.
“It taps into a larger fear, especially in Europe, of Google’s dominance and the power it exercises over all of us,” said Vivek Krishnamurthy of Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, speaking of the EU’s complaint.
Krishnamurthy believes that “the Android action is potentially much more significant” than the formal search complaint because Europe’s concern — that Google forces phone makers to install its search engine and other products — has “shades of the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft” for favoring its Web browser.
“They’re accusing Google of copying Microsoft’s playbook … with this idea that they’re incentivizing manufacturers, or requiring them to bundle Google’s own applications with Android,” he said.
Google began its vigorous defense by calling attention to the success of its competition and denying the charges.
So far, at least, the case against Google is narrow in scope. The European Union has accused the company of abusing its dominance in the search market by favoring its own comparison shopping results over those of competitors.
Such a precise allegation focusing on how people search and shop for products online surprised some lawyers.
“When you think of Google, the first thing that comes to mind is not comparison shopping,” Krishnamurthy said. “It’s an odd first step for the Europeans.”
But Google, which has 10 weeks to respond, could face more trouble if it is unable to convincingly deny the charge that it uses its powerful position to restrict competition. The European Union may broaden its formal allegations or could discover evidence that points to larger problems.
That is a real possibility, according to Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s competition chief, who said a finding that Google infringed EU law by favoring its own shopping service could be a “broader precedent” for enforcing rules on other online search products.
The Danish politician, noting in a news conference that she and her children use the search engine all the time, made clear that Google’s market dominance was not its problem, but how it used that dominance. Shopping is “the area where Google has been favoring its products in its search results for the longest period,” she said, adding that other services under investigation included Google Maps, hotel and flight searches, exclusive contracts with advertisers and copying or “scraping” content from other websites.
Google’s head of search, Amit Singhal, immediately took to the company’s blog Wednesday to defend Google’s practices.
“While Google may be the most used search engine, people can now find and access information in numerous different ways — and allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark,” he wrote.
The company also defended its mobile operating system, noting that partner agreements are voluntary “but provide real benefits to Android users, developers and the broader ecosystem.”
“And in comparison to Apple … there are far fewer Google apps pre-installed on Android phones than Apple apps on iOS devices,” wrote Hiroshi Lockheimer, Android’s vice president of engineering.
The 28-nation bloc has the power to fine Google by about $6 billion, or 10 percent of annual sales, and force changes to how the business operates in Europe. And while the antitrust case is Europe’s largest since targeting Microsoft years ago, many experts say Google could survive it without significant damage if the probe remains focused.
“It is a proceeding that has a lot of weight to it, it’s very significant, but it’s also designed to help air out the issues,” said Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. “We are hopeful that the decisions made in this area will be factual, based on law, and not unduly influenced by political background and parochial, protectionist instincts.”
Contact Matt O’Brien at 408-920-5011. Follow him at Twitter.com/Mattoyeah.