Google Experiences EU Antitrust Friction Over Doubleclick

An anonymous reader writes "Here in the US, the Google purchase of Doubleclick is old news. Despite a few hiccups, the news of April and May seems well in the past. In the European Union, though, the discussion begins anew again as Google seeks permission from EU antitrust regulators. From the article: 'The European Commission said it had set a review deadline of October 26, when it could approve the deal, give a two-week extension or open an in-depth, four-month investigation ... The Commission has already sent questionnaires asking competitors and customers what they think about the deal. Google has already filed with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and with the Australian competition regulator.'"

Comments

How is it anti-competitive?

[LingNoi]

I could set-up my own ad sense / double click service right now at cheaper rates then Google offers and there is nothing they could do to stop me.

Re:How is it anti-competitive?

[onion2k]

Noone is saying it's anti-competitive. They're saying it might be anti-competitive. There's less choice for the consumer. Prior to Google buying DoubleClick someone wanting to purchase adverts had a few choices between 3 similarly sized networks (Google, DoubleClick and Yahoo) plus a handful of smaller players. Since the merger there's one behemoth and noone even close to the same sort of size, and consequently noone in a position to offer the same sort of service. If Google wanted to they could reduce their prices too (economies of scale coming into effect). They have effectively bought themselves into the position of a monopoly. All the EU are doing is checking if that's really the case or if the market is still open for consumers to shop around.

misleading headline

[User 956]

The European Commission said it had set a review deadline of October 26, when it could approve the deal, give a two-week extension or open an in-depth, four-month investigation

It's not friction unless the EU doesn't approve the deal on October 26. Until then, this is normal process. I would question who this "anonymous reader" who submitted the misleading headline is.

Re:EU is right

[someone1234]

This doesn't mean Google is anticompetitive, more like the competition is incompetent.
It isn't Google who closed EU for Yahoo, and it isn't Google who set M$'s business plan.

Re:Asking the competitors what they think..

[Super_Z]

I've a question: who'll protect us from the monopoly of the EU? Did anyone ask YOU if you want them protecting your rights in THIS particular fashion?

The EU anti-competitive laws are set up to regulate the EU common market. The common market was set up as a multinational treaty. It is your goverments fault that it did not consult you before it entered this treaty, not the organization that was a result of this treaty. If you have issues with article 82 in this treaty, then you need to address your own goverment, which then in turn can either move to somehow renegotiate the treay or withdraw from it.

Re:Asking the competitors what they think..

[Teun]

The bias though which the community spins EU's actions is hilarious, but I see this is consistent to what they did with Microsoft, charging them nearly a billion because they shipped a video player in their OS.
Look who spins!
Microsoft is still being investigated because they continue to spoil the playing field for others.
In Europe, just like the USofA, a company in a near-monopoly situation has greater obligations than a start up, Microsoft continues to challenge that notion.
Of course the EU commission could have picked better examples, like opening the specs to allow access to NTFS and supporting Samba.

I've a question: who'll protect us from the monopoly of the EU? Did anyone ask YOU if you want them protecting your rights in THIS particular fashion? I feel very happy we have an active EU commission.
The problem is they see these things as a legal challenge while I would like more technical issues like interoperability being discussed.

Did someone ask you when EU slapped VAT and sales tax on online purchases? Do I have a choice, short of moving to a different continent. I would find it weird, even unacceptable, when internet companies would have a tax advantage over a regular one.
So charging the local/national VAT at the place of destination sounds, as far as any sales tax goes, really fair for all.

Re:Asking the competitors what they think..

[Carewolf]

I've a question: who'll protect us from the monopoly of the EU? Did anyone ask YOU if you want them protecting your rights in THIS particular fashion? Did someone ask you when EU slapped VAT and sales tax on online purchases? Do I have a choice, short of moving to a different continent.

They ask me, the European citizen. The candidate I voted for ran on that platform, and is now doing what he promised when I voted for him.

If you disagree, vote for someone else.

Re:google's anti-trust problems

[xaxa]

I was going to argue with you, but I clicked your website (to see what country you're in). I don't want to argue any more; you're hot, wear black and have similar musical taste to me.

(Well, anyway: the EU is helping startups here, by allowing fairer competition and reducing the likelihood of a single company excluding small businesses from the market. They seem to give grants to small businesses as well.) :-)

Re:A European company?

[JanneM]

I wonder if the EU would be so vigilant if Google was started and owned by a pair of Europeans? Actually, yes. Most antitrust action in the EU has been concerning European companies, not outside ones. And if anything, the commission tends to be harsher towards those than others (since it violates the idea of free trade within the EU).

Re:A European company?

[Ajehals]

That would explain why the EU only ever investigates foreign companies...

Oh wait, what's that? they investigate Foreign and EU companies.. Oh
The US investigates US and foreign companies for this kind of behaviour too?
Oh and the commission is to ensure that *customers* don't get a poor deal? its not about promoting one company over another?

My god, how can we live with this horrible intrusion into the free market, which only effects all companies?

Wait a minute - how come you didn't complain when VW or SAS or Maersk Air, or Hoechst AG, or Peaugot were fined? See what a 2 minute web search can do? That's from a single page, all in one year, take a look at the EU website and see how many fines have been issued against EU and foreign companies. Whilst you are at it, take a look at how many companies have been investigated, because at the end of the day, all that is happening is that a deal that Google has put together that clearly *does* change the on-line advertising market, the EU wants to make sure that that change will not be detrimental to consumers. Hardly a protectionist and anti-American attack (OR should I say that it is not commercial-terrorism?). The EU *is* in part there to encourage and grow EU business, it is also there to protect its own internal market (see the tariffs and penalties imposed against foreign nations, in the same way as they are imposed on the EU), and if it didn't exist Google would be facing investigations not by one commission, but by the individual bodies of each of the current member states (I'm sure some are investigating anyway).

I'm sick and tired of US bashing in the EU and EU bashing from the US. Much of what is discussed in the media in terms of economics is nothing short of propaganda (Although I must say that the US is better at propaganda, or maybe European's are better at seeing through it), see what we have had recently with china, or the reaction in the UK to the US sub prime credit collapse.

If people could put aside their national bias for a day, we might be able to make this free-market globalisation thing work, but that is not likely, instead we will take taxpayers money and use it to prop up ailing businesses (as if they have a *right* to survive) or use it to prevent others from entering our markets. That's the US and Europe (and much of the rest of the world). Either practice capitalism, or scrap it and work out a way of organising an economy that benefits the citizens of the world rather than a few mega-corporations.

Bit of a rant, but come on, this is so far a non story, for the EU it is the sensible thing to do, it s not anti-American, it is ensuring that the consumer (thats me and you) get a good deal.

Re:A European company?

[oliderid]

Yes, Few years ago, the EU didn't approve a merger between two big French industrial industries.
Schneider and Legrand. Schneider lost billions in this affair (If I remember well, they had to resell shares of something). But the EU court voted in favor of Schneider and the EU had to compensate a part of this loss.

http://www.arcweb.com/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=2a4b621b-e581-471b-9f78-98c4f01409c6

There are others like France Telecom forced to resell a subsidiary in Belgium. Merger in Austria forbidden, and plenty of others cases that don't interest US citizens. You only see the top of the Iceberg.

I really do think that it is good that the EU keeps an eye on the free market. Monopolies are a natural tendency of companies. They are not good for a vibrant free market, full of competitions, innovations and fair prices. And this example shows you that the decision may be overruled too.