Google’s Search bias and Android antitrust battles reveal how EU, US, and India balance self-preferencing and consumer welfare.
Authors
Nidhi Modi, Melbourne Law School, Master of Laws student at University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia
Trusha Modi, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Summary
This paper explores and compares two significant antitrust battles faced by Google across the EU, India, and the United States: the Google Search Bias case and the Google Android case. It delves into the allegations of “self-preferencing,” where Google is accused of steering search results to favour its own services, and examines how courts in different jurisdictions have approached this issue, balancing the protection of competition against potential benefits for consumers. The paper also examines the complexities of the Google Android case, investigating claims that Google used its dominant Android operating system to stifle competition and lock users into its ecosystem. The analysis reveals notable differences: while the EU focuses on preventing the foreclosure of competitors, often without requiring evidence of actual harm to consumers, the United States places consumer welfare and pro-competitive benefits at the centre of its scrutiny. India’s stance aligns with the EU’s in the Android case but remains inconsistent regarding self-preferencing. Through this comparative study, the paper highlights the challenge of maintaining a delicate balance between preserving competition, fostering innovation, and protecting consumer interests in the fast-evolving digital landscape. It also touches on the growing relevance of data privacy in antitrust discussions, highlighting the broader implications for regulating Big Tech.
Published in: Competition and Regulation in Network Industries
To read the full article, please click here.
