Google tells tribunal its shopping fix restored competition, not favoritism

(CN) — Google spent two days in a London antitrust trial arguing it fixed online shopping searches condemned by European regulators years ago and insisting rivals are now trying to turn that ruling into a payday.

Comparison-shopping companies Kelkoo, Foundem and Ciao are seeking damages over Google’s search practices before the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal, a specialist antitrust court established in 2003.

The companies accuse Google of using its search engine as a traffic funnel for its own shopping service while pushing rival comparison-shopping sites into the digital equivalent of the back pages. After the European Commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros (approximately $2.77 billion) in 2017, the company rebuilt the shopping box that appears near the top of search results and opened it to rival comparison-shopping services, which could bid for placement alongside Google’s own offering.

The claimants say that change simply put a price tag on visibility and left Google’s advantage largely intact. Google says it did exactly what regulators demanded by opening the same real estate to rivals on equal terms.

After hearing from the claimants earlier in the week, the tribunal got Google’s version of events on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Google’s lawyers repeatedly returned to one point: The European Commission never objected to shopping results appearing on Google’s search page. What regulators objected to, Meredith Pickford told the tribunal, was Google giving its own comparison-shopping service a privileged position that rivals could not match.

“The commission’s complaint was not that we’d stuck our CSS on the page,” Pickford said. Instead, Google had given itself “a privilege, an unfair window” with “advantages both in terms of promotion and in terms of freedom from demotion.” The remedy solved that problem, he said, because “every CSS gets to take part in that exactly the same way as our CSS does.”

Google’s answer to the damages claim starts there. While the claimants say today’s shopping box is still Google’s comparison-shopping service under another name, Pickford told the tribunal it lacks many of the features that define comparison-shopping sites, including product filters, price-sorting tools, product guides and dedicated shopping pages.

Google also rejected the claimants’ preferred remedy. The rival shopping sites say more shopping traffic should have flowed through comparison-shopping services before users moved on to retailers. Pickford argued that would simply add another stop between shoppers and merchants.

“We say that the claims case has no regard to the interests of users,” Pickford told the tribunal.

The company also sought to widen the lens beyond Google’s conduct. Drawing on market studies, internal documents and evidence previously submitted to regulators, its lawyers argued that comparison-shopping sites were competing not only with Google but also with retailers, online marketplaces and other intermediaries.

Lawyers pointed to evidence suggesting consumers increasingly began product searches on Amazon and other platforms rather than on comparison-shopping sites.

“The market was not decimated,” Brendan McGurk told the tribunal, citing internal analyses showing that while some comparison-shopping sites lost traffic, others gained it during the same period.

Google says those shifts in consumer behavior and competition help explain why some comparison-shopping businesses struggled and make it impossible to attribute the sector’s fortunes solely to Google’s conduct.

The trial is expected to continue through the summer as witnesses begin taking the stand. Closing arguments are scheduled for July, with a ruling likely months later. If the claimants prevail, Google could face substantial damages on top of its record EU fine. If Google wins, one of Europe’s biggest antitrust battles may end without the payout its rivals have spent years pursuing.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.