Google EU Android Choice Screen Fails, Rivals Demand Remedy
Competitors to Google’s search engine have increased pressure on the European Commission regarding the tech company’s ‘pay-to-play’ selection screen for Android users throughout Europe—contending that the Google-created auction has not resolved the antitrust concerns the European Commission highlighted over two years ago.
A joint letter sent to the Commission, signed by representatives from Ecosia, DuckDuckGo, Lilo, Qwant and Seznam, requests a meeting involving the EU executive, Google, and the five competing search engines—with the intention of creating a more effective preference menu.
“We are search engine companies that compete with Google. As you are aware, we are significantly dissatisfied with the remedy Google implemented to address the negative effects of its anti-competitive practices in the Android case,” the letter states. “We recognize that Google provides you with regular updates concerning its pay-to-play auction, but we are concerned that the information you receive may not be complete or entirely accurate.”
A Commission representative confirmed receipt of the letter and stated a response will be provided shortly, noting that a choice screen has previously proven to be an effective method for promoting user choice.
The spokeswoman further explained that the Commission “has been in discussions with Google regarding the choice screen mechanism, considering feedback received from the market, particularly concerning the presentation, functionality, and selection process for competing search providers,” and that the Commission remains “dedicated to the complete and effective implementation of the decision” and “will continue to closely monitor the choice screen mechanism’s implementation”.
In 2018, the EU’s antitrust division imposed a $5 billion fine on Google for violating competition laws related to its smartphone platform operations and directed the company to address the identified issues—resulting in the offering of a search engine choice screen to Android users in Europe, instead of solely pre-installing its own.
Google initially presented a choice based on rivals’ local market share but subsequently transitioned to a paid auction system. This approach seems to favor larger, commercial organizations over privacy-focused, regional, and non-profit alternatives.
DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, has, for instance, been unsuccessful in recent auctions—while Microsoft’s Bing has secured additional placements. DuckDuckGo reduced its bidding amount, stating it believes it cannot profitably secure a slot.
Ecosia, a European not-for-profit that utilizes search revenue to fund tree planting, has also criticized the model as unfair, initially boycotting it altogether. The organization resumed participation after experiencing a substantial revenue decline during the coronavirus pandemic. (However, it failed to secure a slot in most markets during the latest auction.)
Google continues to maintain a search market share exceeding 90% within the region.
The five competitors contend that Google is unfairly restricting the search market by limiting the number of available slots on the choice screen to three, with Google’s own search engine consistently occupying a fourth position.
They advocate for a collaborative process to develop a choice screen, rather than allowing Google to independently design its ‘solution’—favoring a non-paid choice screen with space for a greater number of options than the current three (non-Google) choices, potentially based on multiple criteria that promote competition.
The timing of this letter coincides with a competition investigation in the US that has initiated a similar antitrust case against Google domestically. The Department of Justice filed a long-awaited case earlier this month, asserting that the tech giant employs a network of restrictive business agreements to exclude competitors.
Discussing how DuckDuckGo envisions the evolution of the Android choice screen, founder Gabe Weinberg explained to TechCrunch: “We want a well-designed search preference menu that provides users with all the search engine options they anticipate, is free of manipulative design elements, and allows search competition to thrive sustainably. Unfortunately, the current implementation fails to meet any of these essential requirements, but we are optimistic that a more collaborative process could rectify this inadequate remedy.”
Qwant, another signatory to the letter, also highlights the Commission’s objective of regional digital sovereignty—arguing that the Google-designed auction benefits US tech companies at the expense of European alternatives, hindering the EU executive’s broader technological goals.
“After approximately three to four quarters of auctions, we are now experiencing a situation where auction prices are consistently increasing each quarter,” Qwant CEO Jean-Claude Ghinozzi told TechCrunch. “Prices are rising, and competition is shifting towards larger search engines and global search engines—or those with the capacity to invest heavily in this search auction.”
The result, Ghinozzi argued, is a return to “unfair competition”, as the cost of acquiring users through Google’s auction is prohibitively high for smaller European competitors. He suggested that the escalating cost per click to secure a slot on the choice screen effectively amounts to Google transferring the expense of its EU antitrust penalty to its rivals.
“This is detailed in the letter to the commissioner. We require an urgent opportunity to discuss—potentially including Google if they [wish to participate]—the fact that this mechanism is not functioning,” he stated, adding: “We are simply beginning to bear the cost of Google’s actions, as we are reaching a point where it is no longer acceptable for us as a [smaller] search [engine] to pay such a substantial amount to Google merely to be listed.”
“The system should be open and not tied to any auction or payment, and should offer a much more extensive list of search options to new Android phone users,” he added, urging the EU’s competition commissioner to “urgently” review the mechanism—and “propose solutions for opening the European search [market]”.
“After roughly a year of the auction system being active, it is clear that a reassessment is necessary because it is not working. It does not create a fair and open market. That is why we are now presenting this proposal—we urgently need to completely reconsider.”
Participants in the auction are limited in their ability to publicly discuss details due to Google’s requirement of signing a non-disclosure agreement. This is a further reason for their request for a tripartite meeting—with the rivals expressing concerns that not all stakeholders involved in Google’s auction process are privy to the same data as Google.
“The issue is that we do not fully know what Google communicates to the European Commission, and we fear that they may present different information to us than they do to the Commission,” said Guillaume Champeau, Qwant’s chief ethics and legal affairs officer. “The purpose of the tripartite meeting would be to ensure that we all have access to the same information and receive consistent answers to our concerns.”
When asked about the letter’s reference to a concern that the Commission is not receiving complete and/or accurate information from Google, Champeau also stated: “It is a matter of ensuring that everything being said is consistent and does not vary depending on who is on the other side of the table.
“We do not understand why the European Commission would not request changes to the choice screen based on the information we have provided. Therefore, our assumption is that it is based on information that is not accurate. Otherwise, we would likely be confident that the European Commission would have already demanded changes to the choice screen.”
“We need to develop something that appeals to and resonates with Europeans in Europe,” added Ghinozzi, reiterating that the design of the mechanism should not be entrusted to the same company that has been penalized for anti-competitive behavior and which maintains up to 90% market share in Europe.
We contacted Google for a response to the complaints about the auction model and received the following statement from a spokesperson:
While the Commission has not yet provided any resolution to the ongoing complaints from Google’s search rivals regarding the paid choice screen’s failure to substantially alter the competitive landscape on Android, it is scheduled to introduce a legislative package next month that will update ecommerce regulations and impose a new set of obligations and requirements on so-called ‘gatekeeper’ platforms holding dominant market positions—a move widely seen as an effort to curb the influence of US tech giants like Google.
