I'm still a little confused with your reply here. Are you meaning there wasn't a legal case regarding IE in the US? Or that you agree with the US DOJ Findings of Fact document that did state IE harmed competition and consumers in the US in the past (late 90s), but don't agree it was still harmful in the EU in 2009?

It's hard to tell someones position regarding the DOJ specifically with Microsoft, as the DOJ themselves had a radical shift in their case due to the elections in 2000. Along with the initial judge who wrote the Findings of Fact later being removed from the case due to comments he made to the press.

Personally, I found the browser ballot punishment somewhat fitting, considering Microsoft punished an OEM for doing the same with IE and Netscape. Though I generally agree with you that the end result in the EU didn't bring much benefit. Google using the world's most valuable ad space (google.com) to promote Chrome helped more to take desktop marketshare away from IE I believe.


Again it's important to note the case has nothing to do with competition in the organic search market, outside establishing Google as the dominant search engine. It's specifically about Google using their search engine to promote their own unrelated services above competitors services.

Though this brings up a good question (and this is being put forward as an example only, not trying to line it up with the exact investigations). Sites like kayak.com and others exist to help people search or flights and book them. How would one classify the site? Is it a travel booking site akin to going to a travel agent in a brick and mortar store? Is it a search engine?

The FTC classifies Google.com as "Universal Search" when it includes other Google services, separate from a pure "organic internet search" that Google.com once was. It then classifies both Google Travel and Kayak as "Vertical sites/services/property"

Thus due to this separation, they see Google Flights results showing up on google.com universal search as a potential for Google the company to prop up their new sub business unfairly above an independent company like Kayak. I think the key here is that it goes beyond organic search to offering vertical search with an option to act as a travel booking agent.

The consumer harm in this case comes from Google promoting their own booking service above Kayak, and potentially leading people to spend more on travel then necessary. Perhaps Google's service isn't as good at finding lower prices, but is being artificially risen in ranks to where more people click it over Kayak. Or Google charges a larger booking fee then Kayak for every trip accounting for the price difference.

This is the type of harm the FTC and the EU are looking for. And the FTC found evidence of in their investigation. Eric Schmidt testified Google was not artificially promoting their own other services, even when directly asked about ones the FTC later found were artificially promoted. One in particular is the currently named Google Shopping service. In 2011, the senate judiciary committee was initially questioning Eric Schmidt about this.


It's important to note that it was the FTC and the Senate Judiciary committee that investigated Google and reported on their findings, and not the DOJ. This note at the bottom of the FTC press release is useful:

If Google hadn't worked with the FTC on the agreement, the DOJ would have likely been asked to get involved and file formal charges. Either by request from the FTC, or as a result of the multiple states escalating their own cases into legal action. The DOJ can get involved if the FTC also alerts them to violations of the consent order.