Google's Antitrust Challenges and the Illusion of Competition

When facing antitrust allegations, Google frequently asserts that competition is merely “one click away”. This response is often viewed as misleading, given the company’s substantial influence and profitability within the online advertising sector. These gains are largely attributable to its proficiency in attracting and retaining user attention through strategic market manipulation.

The Dark Patterns of Google's Branding

The entirety of Google’s branding can be interpreted as a sophisticated dark pattern. Consider the use of vibrant, child-like colors! The approachable and informal language! The enticing offers of free services! The ambitious rhetoric surrounding its projects!

Beneath this appealing facade lies an adtech corporation that meticulously tracks Internet users to monetize their attention. Its core business model relies on extensive surveillance and the creation of detailed user profiles.

'Other Bets' as a PR Strategy

Google’s innovative ‘other bets’ are often overshadowed by the consistent revenue generated by its advertising operations. These projects primarily serve to enhance Google’s data collection capabilities, fueling its advertising engine.

Android Search Engine Choice and EU Regulation

The question arises: what if Google’s claim of ‘one-click competition’ were genuinely realized within the Android search engine landscape? This area is currently under intense scrutiny by EU competition regulators, following a 2018 antitrust ruling against Google.

The tech giant was penalized with a $5 billion fine and mandated to cease leveraging its Android operating system – offered freely to mobile device manufacturers – to solidify the dominance of its own search engine and associated Google services on mobile platforms.

The Android 'Choice Screen' – A Limited Solution

Google subsequently implemented a ‘choice screen’ on Android devices within the EU. This screen presents users with a selection of default search engine options, with Google auctioning slots to competing providers.

However, this choice is presented only once, during the initial device setup or after a factory reset. It is not a continuously available option for Android users to easily switch their default search engine.

DuckDuckGo's Critique of the Android Remedy

“For all practical purposes, if you wish to alter your default device search engine again with ease, you cannot,” states DuckDuckGo (DDG) in a recent blog post advocating for reform of Google’s Android ‘remedy’.

DDG estimates that changing the default search engine requires more than 15 clicks after the initial setup or a factory reset. The company asserts that this complex process “trips up almost everyone”.

“Consequently, ‘one click competition’ effectively becomes ‘one factory reset away’,” DDG contends. “The only conceivable rationale for such a cumbersome preference menu is anti-competitive behavior.”

Criticism of the Pay-to-Play Auction Model

The pro-privacy search engine has consistently voiced these concerns for months. Furthermore, criticism extends beyond the difficulty of switching search engines. Google’s decision to employ a ‘pay-to-play’ auction model for slots on the choice screen has drawn widespread condemnation.

Multiple search rivals argue that an auction system is inherently unfair and does not foster a level playing field for competition. Google’s own search engine is always included as an option, without incurring any associated costs.

Impact on Non-Profit Search Engines

Ecosia, a non-profit search engine, highlights that the auction format disadvantages organizations dedicated to the public good. In Ecosia’s case, revenue generated from search is used to plant trees, mitigating global carbon emissions. Funds spent on the Google auction reduce the amount available for reforestation efforts.

Balancing Auction Criticism with Ease of Switching

DDG acknowledges the criticism of the paid auction model but emphasizes the importance of addressing the issue of ease of switching. The company stresses that multiple aspects of the choice screen require reform to achieve the pro-competition effects sought by EU antitrust regulators.

Google's Continued Market Dominance

It is increasingly evident that the current implementation of the choice screen primarily benefits Google, allowing it to maintain its dominance in the mobile search market, nearly three years after the Commission’s antitrust intervention.

According to Statista data, Google’s market share in mobile search has not decreased since 2018. In fact, as of February, it had even experienced a slight increase compared to its share at the time of the antitrust ruling.

This outcome clearly does not reflect successful market rebalancing.

The Commission's Standard Responses

When presented with criticisms from competitors, the Commission typically offers standard responses, stating its ongoing monitoring of Google’s implementation and commitment to effectively enforcing the 2018 decision. It generally avoids addressing the substance of the criticisms or specific suggestions for improvement.

The Commission reiterated these responses when contacted regarding DDG’s call for genuine ‘one-click’ competition on Android through simplified default search engine switching.

Signs of Potential EU Action

However, there are indications that EU regulators may be preparing to take further action.

Bloomberg recently reported comments from Margrethe Vestager, the Commission’s antitrust chief and EVP, stating that regulators are “actively working on making” Google’s Android choice screen function effectively for search and browser rivals.

She also noted that market share “is changing a bit but we’re working on it”.

Commission's Ongoing Monitoring

In additional comments, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to a full and effective implementation of the decision, stating: “We are therefore monitoring closely the implementation of the choice screen mechanism.”

“We have been discussing the choice screen mechanism with Google, following relevant feedback from the market, in particular in relation to the presentation and mechanics of the choice screen and to the selection mechanism of rival search providers,” it added.

Broader Regulatory Scrutiny

DDG declined to elaborate on discussions with EU regulators regarding choice screen reform, citing confidentiality. However, founder Gabriel Weinberg pointed out that other jurisdictions are also examining ways to address Google’s dominance, noting that “major countries are actively considering search preference menus right now”.

The US Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit against Google last October, and US states are also pursuing legal challenges against the tech giant.

A Call for a User-Friendly Preference Menu

“We believe a ‘choice screen’ that only appears once at start up will not meaningfully increase market competition or give consumers the freedom and simplicity they deserve to chose Google alternatives,” Weinberg stated. “On the other hand, a properly designed preference menu gives users true one-click access to making Google competitors the default search on their device, without having to take the absurd step of factory reseting their phone.”

DDG's Recommendations for Regulatory Action

In its blog post, DDG offers specific advice to regulators on how to effectively challenge Google and prevent it from manipulating search competition on Android.

“The sensible approach is to give users an easy pathway to the search preference menu by letting them tap a link from a search engine app or website within the default browser (e.g., Chrome). With that simple tap, the user is whisked directly to the search preference menu,” it writes.

“Not allowing competing search engines to easily guide consumers back to the search preference menu is a pretty big dark pattern because it is requiring users to make an important choice when they often aren’t ready to do so, and then not giving them the option to easily change their mind later while using a competing search engine.”

“So, to anyone considering implementing a search preference menu, or drafting regulations covering search preference menus, please ensure that consumers can access it at any time, especially after a consumer has just chosen to use a competing search engine,” it adds. “Functionality that allows competing search engines to guide consumers directly to the preference menu is necessary for consumer empowerment and search market competition.”