Search Results

This is part one of a two part series of posts in which I’ll address the problems associated with discerning an appropriate antitrust remedy to alleged search engine bias.  The first problem – and part – is, of course, how we should conceptualize Google’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct; in the next part, I will address how antitrust regulators should conceive of a potential remedy, assuming arguendo the existence of a problem at all.  Despite some commentators’ assumptions, I do not think the economics indicate any such problem exists.

The question of how to conceptualize Google’s business practices – even its business model! – remains the indispensible starting point for antitrust analysis, including potential remedies; doubly so in the wake of the FTC’s decision to formally investigate Google.  While the next part will focus more directly upon potential remedies that have been proposed by various Google critics, there is a fundamental link between how we conceptualize Google’s provision of search results for the purposes of antitrust analysis and the design of remedies.  Indeed, antitrust enforcers and scholars have taught that thinking hard about remedies upfront can and frequently should influence how we think about the competitive nature of the conduct at issue.  The question of how to conceptualize Google’s organic search results has sparked serious debate, as some have claimed that “Google’s behavior is harder to define” than traditional anticompetitive actions and represents “a new kind of competition.”  Some have also focused upon “search bias” itself as the relevant conduct for antitrust purposes.  Of course, as I’ve pointed out, these statements are not in line with modern antitrust economics and usually precede calls to deviate from traditional consumer-welfare-focused antitrust analysis.

I see two useful conceptual constructs in evaluating “search bias” within the antitrust framework.  Recall that “search bias” typically translates to allegations that Google favors its own affiliated content over that of rivals.  For example, a search query on Google for “map of Arlington, VA” might turn up a map of Arlington from Google Maps in the top link.  These allegations usually concede that we would expect Bing Maps if we ran the same search on Bing.  The complaints from vertical search engines and travel services like Expedia particularly center around the notion that Google’s “entry” into various spaces  –  such as travel services – supported by prominent search rankings disadvantages rivals and may lead to their exit.

Observant readers will note my use of scare quotes around “entry.”  This is not coincidental.  It is not obvious to me that Google necessarily enters a new sector (much less a well-defined antitrust product market) when it directs a user to content in a new format– such as a map, video, or place page.  Google’s primary function is search; users rely on search engines to reduce search and information costs.  I think it is at least as likely that Google’s attempts to provide this content by any chosen metric is simply an attempt to do their cardinal job better: answering user queries with relevant information at a minimum of cost.  Holding that threshold issue aside for a moment, in my mind, there are two ways to classify that conduct in the antitrust framework.

First, one might conceive of search bias allegations as “vertical integration” or vertical contractual activity.  I’ve explored this conception at significant length both in blog posts (see, e.g. here and here) as well as a longer article with Geoff.  The classic antitrust concern in this setting is that a monopolist might foreclose rivals from an input the rivals need to compete effectively.  For example, Google owns YouTube; Google could prominently place YouTube results when users enter queries seeking video content.  (Ignore for the moment that YouTube will necessarily rank highly on other search engines because it is the leading site for video content).  Within this vertical integration framework, there is a standard analysis for understanding when competitive concerns might arise, the conditions that must be satisfied for those concerns to warrant scrutiny, a deeply embedded understanding that harm to rivals must be distinguished from demonstrable harm to competition, and an equally deeply held understanding that these vertical arrangements and relationships are often, even typically, pro-competitive (e.g., in the YouTube example vertical integration likely leads to reduced latency and faster provision of video content).

Second, one might conceptualize organic search results as the product of Google’s algorithm and thus falling into the category of conduct analyzed as “product design” for antitrust purposes.  This algorithm faces competition from other search algorithms and vertical search engines to deliver relevant results to consumers.  It is the design of the algorithm that ranks Google-affiliated content, according to the complaints, preferentially and to the disadvantage of rivals. I explore both beneath the fold.

The two conceptions are not mutually exclusive.  The antitrust implications of the two different conceptions of Google’s organic search are significant.  Courts and agencies generally give wide latitude to product design decisions, through with some prominent exceptions (Microsoft, FTC v. Intel).  Courts are skeptical to intervene on the basis of complaints about product design by rivals because they concerned that such intervention will chill innovation.  Concern for false positives play a central part in the analysis, as do concerns that any remedy will involve judicial oversight of product innovation.  Plaintiffs can and do, from time to time, win these cases, but the product-design conception carries with it a heavy deference for design decisions.

The “vertical” (in the antitrust sense) conception of Google’s search results requires us to think about the economics of algorithmic search ranking, placement choices, and the economics of vertical relationships between a content provider and a search engine.  There are many economic reasons for vertical contractual relationships between such content or product providers and retailers.  Coca-Cola pays retailers for promotional shelf space, manufacturers compensate retailers by granting them exclusive territories, and product manufacturers and distributors often enter into exclusive relationships in which the distributor does not simply feature or promote the manufacturer’s product, but does so to the exclusion of all of the manufacturer’s rivals.

The anticompetitive narrative of Google’s conduct focuses heavily on that prominent placement within Google’s rankings, e.g. the first link or one towards the top of the page, results in a substantial amount of traffic.  This is no doubt true; it is not a sufficient condition for proving competitive harm.  It is equally true that eye-level and other premium level shelf space in the supermarket generates more sales than other placements within the store.  There is good economic reason for manufacturers to pay retailers for premium shelf space (see Klein and Wright, 2007); and evidence that these arrangements are good for consumers (Wright, 2008).  Retailers’ shelf space decisions, and decisions to promote one product over another, are often influenced by contractual incentives; and it is a good thing for consumers.   Now consider the case when the retailer shelf space decision is influenced not by contractual incentive and compensation, but by ownership.  This is really just a special case – as ownership aligns the incentives (like the contract would) of the manufacturer and retailer.  For example, a supermarket might promote its own private label brand in eye-level shelf space.  Alternatively, in a category management relationship, a retailer might delegate a specific manufacturer as “category captain” and allow it significant influence over product selection and shelf space placement decisions.  Note that in the case of exclusive relationships, the presumption that such arrangements are pro-competitive applies to shelf placement that would entirely exclude a rival from the shelf, not just demote it.

In economics, the theoretical and empirical verdict is in about these sorts of vertical contractual relationships: while they can be anticompetitive under some circumstances, the appropriate presumption is that they are generally pro-competitive and a part of the normal competitive process until proven otherwise.  How we conceptualize placement of search results, including those affiliated with the search engine (e.g. Google Maps on Google or Bing Maps on Bing), should influence how we think about the appropriate burden of production facing would-be antitrust plaintiffs, including the Federal Trade Commission.

Indeed, these two models offer important trade-offs for antitrust analysis.  To wit, in my view, the vertical integration model provides a still difficult, but relatively easier case for potential rivals to make under existing case law, but it also integrates efficiencies directly into the analysis.  For example, vertical integration and exclusive dealing cases accept as a starting point the notion that such arrangements are often efficient.  On the other hand, while potential plaintiffs have a tougher initial burden in a product design case, the focus often turns to how the design impacts interoperability and whether the defendant can defend its technical design choices.   Having explored the potential conceptual constructs for characterizing Google’s conduct for the purpose of antitrust analysis, my next post will link those concepts to a discussion of potential remedies, exploring the proposed remedies for Google’s conduct, a relevant historical parallel to today’s “search bias” debate raised by some as a model of regulatory success, and a discussion of the economic non sequiturs surrounding the case against Google as juxtaposed against these proposed remedies.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, federal trade commission, google, monopolization, technology

Excerpt

The FCC published in June its annual report on the state of competition in the mobile services marketplace. Under ordinary circumstances, this 300-plus page tome would sit quietly on the shelf, since, like last year’s report, it ‘‘makes no formal finding as to whether there is, or is not, effective competition in the industry.’’

But these are not ordinary circumstances. Thanks to innovations including new smartphones and tablet computers, application (app) stores and the mania for games such as ‘‘Angry Birds,’’ the mobile industry is perhaps the only sector of the economy where consumer demand is growing explosively.

Meanwhile, the pending merger between AT&T and T-Mobile USA, valued at more than $39 billion, has the potential to accelerate development of the mobile ecosystem. All eyes, including many in Congress, are on the FCC and the Department of Justice. Their review of the deal could take the rest of the year. So the FCC’s refusal to make a definitive finding on the competitive state of the industry has left analysts poring through the report, reading the tea leaves for clues as to how the FCC will evaluate the proposed merger.

Make no mistake: this is some seriously expensive tea. If the deal is rejected, AT&T is reported to have agreed to pay T-Mobile $3 billion in cash for its troubles. Some competitors, notably Sprint, have declared full-scale war, marshaling an army of interest groups and friendly journalists.

But the deal makes good economic sense for consumers. Most important, T-Mobile’s spectrum assets will allow AT&T to roll out a second national 4G LTE (longterm evolution) network to compete with Verizon’s, and expand service to rural customers. (Currently, only 38 percent of rural customers have three or more choices for mobile broadband.)

More to the point, the government has no legal basis for turning down the deal based on its antitrust review. Under the law, the FCC must approve AT&T’s bid to buy T-Mobile USA unless the agency can prove the transaction is not ‘‘in the public interest.’’ While the FCC’s public interest standard is famously undefined, the agency typically balances the benefits of the deal against potential harm to consumers. If the benefits outweigh the harms, the Commission must approve.

The benefits are there, and the harms are few. Though the FCC refuses to acknowledge it explicitly, the report’s impressive detail amply supports what everyone already knows: falling prices, improved quality, dynamic competition and unflagging innovation have led to a golden age of mobile services. Indeed, the three main themes of the report all support AT&T’s contention that competition will thrive and the public’s interests will be well served by combining with T-Mobile.

 

Continue reading 

As I noted in a post last month, the Ninth Circuit recently threw out an antitrust challenge to cable operators’ refusal to provide cable channels on an a la carte, rather than bundled, basis.  (Josh also had some insightful comments on the Ninth Circuit’s Brantley decision.)  In my post, I promised that I would later explain how channel bundling, which permits cable operators to price discriminate and extract greater consumer surplus, may nonetheless benefit consumers by expanding output.  Having just finished incorporating a number of helpful comments Herbert Hovenkamp gave me on a forthcoming tying/bundling article (more about that later!), now seems like a swell time to return to the topic of cable bundling.

Read the full piece here. 

Others have linked to this, but its really a fantastic video of a discussion between Justin Wolfers and Robert Frank discussing happiness and economic growth.

Filed under: behavioral economics, economics

Of likely interest to many of our readers (HT: WSJ):

Christine Varney, the U.S. government’s chief antitrust regulator, is expected to join New York law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP as a partner later this year, people familiar with the matter said.  Ms. Varney was appointed assistant attorney general for the antitrust division in 2009, and had been at Hogan & Hartson LLP, focusing on the firm’s antitrust and Internet practices.  At Cravath, Ms. Varney will work on antitrust issues related to merger-and-acquisition transactions, the people said.

Former Cravath partner Katherine Forrest worked under Ms. Varney at the Justice Department beginning last October. Ms. Forrest is slated to become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York court.

Cravath is one of the top M&A law firms in New York, working on deals such as the $3 billion sale of retailer J. Crew to a group of private-equity firms including TPG Capital and last year’s merger between Continental Airlines and United Airlines.

 

Filed under: antitrust

FTC v. Staples is a seminal case in modern antitrust analysis of horizontal mergers.  Judge Posner has described it as the economic “coming of age” of merger analysis.   It is also a landmark decision in the development of unilateral effects theories.  Despite the fact that Judge Hogan did not explicitly rely upon the econometric evidence presented to demonstrate that a post-merger combination of Staples and Office Depot would be able to increase prices, it is also often discussed as having particular importance for the role of econometrics in antitrust analysis.  As Jonathan Baker observes:

Judge Hogan’s hidden opinion supports the government’s use of econometric evidence, though the court did not trumpet doing so. The opinion never uses the term, presumably in a conscious effort to downplay novelty in order to avoid creating an issue for appeal. Yet Judge Hogan demonstrably relied on econometric evidence in one instance,(14) when he stated that “in this case the defendants have projected a pass through rate of two-thirds of the savings while the evidence shows that, historically, Staples has passed through only 15-17%.”(15) The sole basis in the record for the 15-17% figure is the testimony of the FTC’s econometric expert as to the conclusions of his statistical analysis of the pass-through rate.

The district court was persuaded by the FTC’s pricing evidence, and evidence that entry would not timely, likely and sufficient to counter any price increase.  Part of that entry analysis was rejecting the defendant’s claim that firms like Walmart would discipline any attempt to increase prices.  In any interesting turn of events, nearly 15 years later, it looks like we are heading toward another significant merger between office superstores:

Office Depot Inc. (ODP) and OfficeMax Inc. (OMX) may need to merge after heightened competition for office-supply sales and a 26-year high in the U.S. unemployment rate helped wipe out almost $13 billion of shareholder value.

Office Depot, the second-largest U.S. office-supply chain, has plunged 90 percent to $1.16 billion in the last five years, more than any American retailer that still has a market value greater than $500 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. OfficeMax was valued at $664 million yesterday after plummeting 78 percent, the third-steepest drop. Both trade at 10 cents or less per dollar of sales — one-tenth of the industry average and ranking in the bottom five of 126 retailers.

Interestingly, competitive pressure from Wal-Mart and Target, among others, appears to have developed into a significant force in the market.

With businesses spending less on paper and printers as the U.S. jobless rate hovers at 9 percent, combining Office Depot with OfficeMax may reduce costs by almost $500 million, said KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. Regulatory approval won’t be a hurdle because of more competition from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Target Corp. (TGT) since Staples Inc. (SPLS) was blocked from buying Office Depot in 1997, said BB&T Capital Markets. Money-losing Office Depot of Boca Raton, Florida, hired interim Chief Executive Officer Neil Austrian in May after a seven-month search.

“Office Depot needs OfficeMax,” said Anthony Chukumba, an analyst with BB&T in New York. “They need to combine so they can scale up to better compete with Staples. For them to bring in a guy who’s been on the board forever and who has been CEO twice before on an interim basis, that just smacked of them saying, ‘We’re going to try to sell the company.’”

Of course, the ex post expansion of Wal-Mart and others into this territory does not mean that the FTC or Judge Hogan were wrong ex ante.  Indeed, the strength of the economic evidence in the case suggested that entry would be difficult — and indeed, perhaps it was.  Nonetheless, a merger of the the second and third largest office superstores is surely to attract some attention at the agencies.  Indeed, it may well be the case that the sale of consumable office supplies through office superstores in no longer a relevant antitrust product market.  However, the markets have changed in ways other than the emergence of significant pricing discipline from Wal-Mart and others.  The story notes that Office Depot’s market value has decreased by over $10,3 billion ($2.3 billion for OfficeMax since June 2006).

Given the growth of Wal-Mart and others, I suspect that even a replay of the Staples-Office Depot transaction of the late 1990s would have a significantly better chance of approval today than it did then.  Those in the industry appear to be expecting a merger announcement, but describe government approval as “certainly not a given.”  In any event, a Office Depot – Office Max merger will provide a good opportunity to go back and look at the predictions of the agencies at the time, to evaluate those predictions against the development of the market, and perhaps to learn something useful about competitive dynamics and entry in the retail sector.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, federal trade commission, merger guidelines, mergers & acquisitions

From the WSJ:

The Department of Health and Human Services this month notified Howard Solomon of Forest Laboratories Inc. that it intends to exclude him from doing business with the federal government. This, in turn, could prevent Forest from selling its drugs to Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration. If the government implements its ban, Forest would have to dump Mr. Solomon, now 83 years old, in order to protect its corporate revenue. No drug company, large or small, can afford to lose out on sales to the federal government, a major customer.

….

The Health and Human Services department startled drug makers last year when the agency said it would start invoking a little-used administrative policy under the Social Security Act against pharmaceutical executives. This policy allows officials to bar corporate leaders from health-industry companies doing business with the government, if a drug company is guilty of criminal misconduct. The agency said a chief executive or other leader can be banned even if he or she had no knowledge of a company’s criminal actions. Retaining a banned executive can trigger a company’s exclusion from government business.

Debarment is obviously a very serious remedy.  The increased use of debarment in this context has been controversial, especially in cases in which the executive has not demonstrated that the debarred individual is actually complicit.  The WSJ story discusses the Forest Laboratories example along these lines in more detail:

According to Mr. Westling, “It would be a mistake to see this as solely a health-care industry issue. The use of sanctions such as exclusion and debarment to punish individuals where the government is unable to prove a direct legal or regulatory violation could have wide-ranging impact.” An exclusion penalty could be more costly than a Justice Department prosecution.

He said that the Defense Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, have debarment powers similar to the HHS exclusion authority.

The Forest case has its origins in an investigation into the company’s marketing of its big-selling antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro. Last September, Forest made a plea agreement with the government, under which it is paying $313 million in criminal and civil penalties over sales-related misconduct.

A federal court made the deal final in March. Forest Labs representatives said they were shocked when the intent-to-ban notice was received a few weeks later, because Mr. Solomon wasn’t accused by the government of misconduct.

Forest is sticking by its chief. “No one has ever alleged that Mr. Solomon did anything wrong, and excluding him [from the industry] is unjustified,” said general counsel Herschel Weinstein. “It would also set an extremely troubling precedent that would create uncertainty throughout the industry and discourage regulatory settlements.”

The issue of debarment also arises in the antitrust context as a weapon in the toolkit of antitrust enforcement agencies prosecuting cartels.  Judge Ginsburg and I have argued, in Antitrust Sanctions, that the debarment remedy in that context, along with a shift toward individual responsibility and away from ever-increasing corporate fines, would result in a shift toward efficient deterrence.   In our case, we discuss debarment for the executive actually engaged in the price-fixing as well as officers and directors who negligently supervise the price-fixers (e.g., with failure to institute an antitrust compliance program).   Without safeguards to ensure that debarment is imposed in cases of actual wrongdoing or negligent supervision, and also in the cases of settlement, that there is a factual basis for debarment, imposition of these penalties runs the risk that enforcement agencies will have arbitrary power to banish executives that are disfavored for whatever reason.  If its application is properly constrained, however, debarment can be a more effective tool in prosecuting antitrust offenses and potentially other white-collar crime than ever-increasing corporate fines which are largely borne by shareholders.  I’ll refer interested readers to the Ginsburg & Wright link above for the more detailed case in favor of adding debarment to the cartel-enforcement toolkit, including a discussion of its application in the antitrust context in a variety of other countries as well as non-antitrust settings in the U.S.

Filed under: antitrust, corporate crime, corporate law, economics

Josh, Berin Szoka and I have a new op-ed up at CNET on why the lessons of Microsoft suggest the FTC’s action against Google might be misguided.  A taste:

Ten years ago this week, an appeals court upheld Microsoft’s conviction for monopolizing the PC operating system market. The decision became a key legal precedent for U.S. antitrust enforcement. It also cemented the government’s confidence in its ability to pick winners and losers in fast-moving technology markets–a confidence not borne out by subsequent events.

Now this sad history seems to be repeating itself: By uncanny coincidence, news broke just last Friday that the FTC had begun an antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices. Unfortunately, there’s no reason to expect the outcome to be any better for consumers this time around.

There is, in fact, no evidence that the case against Microsoft or its settlement contributed to the spectacular innovation in the IT sector over the last decade. Indeed, they may even have solidified Microsoft’s role as the perennial also-ran in this latest wave of technological progress, as the company struggled to keep innovating under the threat of constant antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad.

The true lesson of the Microsoft case is this: antitrust intervention in information technology has a poor track record of serving consumers. Even Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was a court-appointed Special Master in that case and has since championed government tinkering with the Internet, finally admitted in 2007 that he “blew it on Microsoft” by underestimating the potential for innovation and market forces to dethrone Microsoft, particularly through the rise of open-source software (which now in part powers Apple’s popular iOS).

Filed under: antitrust, business, error costs, exclusionary conduct, federal trade commission, law and economics, monopolization, technology, tying

Excerpt

Ten years ago this week, an appeals court upheld Microsoft’s conviction for monopolizing the PC operating system market. The decision became a key legal precedent for U.S. antitrust enforcement. It also cemented the government’s confidence in its ability to pick winners and losers in fast-moving technology markets–a confidence not borne out by subsequent events.

Now this sad history seems to be repeating itself: By uncanny coincidence, news broke just last Friday that the FTC had begun an antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices. Unfortunately, there’s no reason to expect the outcome to be any better for consumers this time around.

There is, in fact, no evidence that the case against Microsoft or its settlement contributed to the spectacular innovation in the IT sector over the last decade. Indeed, they may even have solidified Microsoft’s role as the perennial also-ran in this latest wave of technological progress, as the company struggled to keep innovating under the threat of constant antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad.

The true lesson of the Microsoft case is this: antitrust intervention in information technology has a poor track record of serving consumers. Even Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was a court-appointed Special Master in that case and has since championed government tinkering with the Internet, finally admitted in 2007 that he “blew it on Microsoft” by underestimating the potential for innovation and market forces to dethrone Microsoft, particularly through the rise of open-source software (which now in part powers Apple’s popular iOS).

Continue reading on C-NET