Google rivals head to D.C. for antitrust dogpile

Business

Expedia, Nextag and Yelp are in Washington, D.C. to participate in a Senate judiciary antitrust subcommittee hearing about whether or not Google has acted anti-competitively in the market. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman is one of the executives who has been asked to provide testimony during the hearing and he has posted his written testimony on Yelp’s website. “Google is no longer in the business of sending people to the best sources of information on the web,” Stoppelman said. “It now hopes to be a destination site itself for one vertical market after another, including news, shopping, travel and now, local business reviews. It would be one thing if these efforts were conducted on a level playing field, but the reality is they are not.” Read on for more.

Stoppleman explained that Google once agreed to license Yelp’s content, but never did, and still uses Yelp’s results to “prop up its own, less effective product.” Google said it would “cease the practice only if [Yelp] agreed to be removed from Google’s web search index, thereby preventing Yelp from appearing anywhere in Google search results,” Stoppleman’s testimony explained. “Allowing a search engine with monopoly market share to exploit and extend its dominance hampers entrepreneurial activity,” Stoppleman concluded. “They prefer to send consumers to the most profitable sites on the Web: their own,” he added on Wednesday.

Nextag CEO Jeff Ketz’ opinion is similar to Jeremy Stoppelman’s. Katz explained that Google, which he says views Nextag as a threat, only allows his company to purchase and bid on ads that are lower down on the results page than the more prominent top results. “Google is the dominant digital advertising resource in the world, and Nextag is restricted from marketing itself to shoppers about the services we can provide,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “Google rigs its results,” Katz argued on Wednesday. “[It] doesn’t play fair,” he said, according to CNET.

A Google spokesperson explained that Nextag can’t purchase the more prominent ads because it points buyers to other sellers and does not actually sell the products itself. The Federal Trade Commission announced in late July that it would review Google’s business practices and one watchdog group, Fairsearch.org, has accused the search engine of anti-competitive practices.

Read

32 Comments
  • Anonymous

    To be quite honest, Google should have a monopoly. They are the awesomest company in the world. And they don’t do evil!

    • Anonymous

      Its nuts to see that 7 fools agreed with you. No company should ever have a monopoly and that don’t be evil schtick is a B.S. 

      • http://smartic.us bryanl

        Having a monopoly shouldn’t be illegal (and it isn’t). Having a monopoly and using it to practice business unfairly is wrong.

  • Anonymous

    EAT IT CRAPOOGLE, EAT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      Crapple?

  • cancelthat

    If their search results weren’t what people wanted, they’d use Bing or Yahoo. Google’s results are relevant and pretty straightforward, that’s why they win. The moment Bing gives better search results IT departments and nerds across the world will consult their employees, friends and family that Google is weak sauce, and Bing is the new hotness. Ft chance though. Bing sucks.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. To compare this to the days of Ma Bell is flawed. People didn’t have a choice with Ma Bell but if someone doesn’t like the results Google delivers they can go to any other search engine they want. Heck, Google even let’s users take their data with them. This all strikes me as much ado about nothing. Now, if they want to hold hearings about user privacy, that I think would be justified.

      • dwinsmith

        That was because Ma Bell bought up all the competitors and made it impossible for anyone to compete. Sound familiar? Google is very good as almost everything they do so much of their success is justified and as long as it stay that way there should be no problem. 

      • Anonymous

        You mean like when Yahoo bought AltaVista?

  • dwinsmith

    There is no question that Google does things to serve their own interests but I’m not sure I’ve heard enough to consider it an Anti-Trust issue. The Yelp thing pissed me off when I heard about it months ago because not being shown in Google search results is like death for a web business, and I don’t think they should have used Yelp’s data to populate their own site, but as it is Google seems to most often provide the most relevant results and consumers will likely continue to use them most as long as that remains the case. It does become much harder though for new companies to emerge and thrive when Google seems to be taking over the information market and the fact that they are often the site that leads you to the information you’re looking for means that they have almost complete control over what you can find, so I do think more transparency might be good there.

  • Anonymous

    WELP… Why doesn’t Yelp Start a search company and put their name at the top of every list… NO ONE is FORCING ANYONE to use Google. Use “Dogpile” instead.. Wtf, it is not like M$ that bundled IE with Windows.. Google is the best search-site for general bullshit. What the hell is Yelp anyway?

    • dwinsmith

      Nobody forced anyone to use Windows either, but that didn’t change the fact that they took advantage of their situation. The jury is still out on Google, but you are not making an accurate comparison either way.

  • Anonymous

    how is this a monopoly? no one has to use google. many companies are paid to install browsers like bing on mobile phones. im comfortable with google, i like it. if they stop giving me good results i’ll stop using google. seems ridiculous that joke companies are crying that they cant compete. make a better product and people will use it. when i heard bb was using bing as default browser for bb7 i was not happy. if google leads you to their other products isnt that just good business sense.

    • dwinsmith

      Study the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit and you’ll see how it’s related and relevant. Google has a complete lock on the search market and if they choose to only direct people towards their own sites then they are being anti-competitive, just like Microsoft only allowing Internet Explorer when they have the lock on the OS market. 

      I’m not saying this is actually the case, but that is what is being suggested by some organizations. 

  • Sean Connery

    Where are all the Android fans crying for the AT&T-Mobile deal to be blocked…?

    • Anonymous

      block att merger. here i am

      • Sean Connery

        Why? You don’t have to use AT&T. The other companies are jokes. They can’t compete with AT&T. They should make a better product and people will use their network. If AT&T buys T-Mobile to make their product better, isn’t that just good business sense?

    • Anonymous

      BLOCK The merger.. More job losses.. NO!!

      Better?

  • Anonymous

    I went to a Jeep dealership looking for a car, but all they showed me were Jeeps! It’s like a monopoly. I didn’t have a choice. All I can drive is a Jeep, and Google is the only search engine… wait.

    • dwinsmith

      Your analogy is way off. 

      • Anonymous

        The fact remains: the switching cost to leave Google and choose an alternative is zero (it just so happens that the alternatives, in my opinion, suck). So is the degree to which I am forced to use Google products. How is it different from seeing default installations of Safari or iTunes on a Mac OS product? Or Bing on a Windows Phone 7 device. Or IE on Windows? Or seeing top links for Hotmail or Bing Maps when using Bing. Or (different industry here) my bank telling me that they only tie into MasterCard, and not Visa. The fact is, every concern and allegation raised today by the senate could be legitimately directed to any number of competitors as well. Google just happens to be the successful child that is now being shown the hot seat. But my opinion only.

      • dwinsmith

        Google makes money off of your use of their products and if they direct you to their service only that is a problem, bottom line, even if that isn’t what is happening. 

        Apple does not make money from your use of Safari, and while they do make money from iTunes, they do not make the majority of the profit or direct you towards buying from them when you attempt to use your computer. When I search for something in Safari I am not direct to buy something from iTunes. iTunes is an application that plays music just like Windows Media player and it also happens to have a music store just like Windows Media player.

        iTunes does not prevent you from finding certain music or promote certain music simply for their own gain and that is what these other companies are claiming that Google does. 

        When you search for something and YouTube videos are the first results then you visit YouTube, Google makes money from the advertising associated with that video and the person who created the video makes nothing. Your bank analogy is wayy off too because when you go into the bank you have have a Visa or Mastercard which the bank doesn’t directly benefit from which you have the option of. Bing on Windows Phone 7 is an issue IMO since it’s not possible to install another search service that can work in the way that Bing does or even slightly replicate it. 

      • Anonymous

        You’re still not demonstrating how Google is hindering consumer choice or engaging in monopolistic behavior. The bottom line is, regardless of differences between Google, Apple or Microsoft’s revenue model, core business or product strategy, I’m in no way forced to use Google products, just like I’m not forced to use iTunes if I prefer to buy my music on Amazon. When I search for an address on Google, I want the Google Map. Had I wanted Bing, Mapquest or Yelp, I would simply go there. Now, if Senate thinks I’m wrong, then they need to take a close look at tied selling practices and preferential pricing in many other industries before they attack Google.

      • Legendz411

        Sick discussion.

        I wish everyone had the ability to discuss and explain things like this.

        +1

  • Anonymous

    So I can say whatever I want here, like “f*#$ you moderator,” as long as it’s short… but if I put a few sentences together, it has to be approved??? BGR, c’mon now.

  • Anonymous

    Here it goes the truth is being shined on Google

  • BigMixxx

    ok….I’m really tripping on this.  The Government asked Eric Schmidt “how y’all do that” with a scatter chart and called it inconstant.  

    LOL…”I’m sorry I may have confused you”.  
    LOL…”I can assure you that we have not cook anything”

    I don’t believe the Government is really investigating Google.  Imagine if google picked up it’s business and moved from America to, say, Canada….does GDP drop 15% because Google moved to Canada? 

    • dwinsmith

      No our GDP wouldn’t drop 15%. Maybe you should gain some knowledge before you provide further insights. 

  • http://twitter.com/derrickisonline Derrick -Lex-

    So much for “Do no evil”.  As much as I love Google, Yelp is right.  But the fact is, I still Google places to eat, read reviews from Yelp and end up clicking a link that takes me to Yelp.  So at the end of the day I still end up at the Yelp site.

    I love how Google handles search so although I agree with Yelp…I also say fuuuuuck em.

    • Anonymous

      I sympathize with Yelp, but I think they’re really misdirecting their frustration. The core of their complaint to the senate revolves around lost business. Yet, 65-75% of their traffic, even today, still comes from Google. So what is it, Yelp? And also, when asked what actions Google should take to address the issue, founder Jeremy Stoppelman had a blank stare. So my guess is: Yelp is mad about something, but Google ain’t the problem.

  • Anonymous

    If you don’t like Google, use Yahoo or that sanitized POS called Bing.

    This all started when freshman Utah Sen. Mike Lee, as a lawyer in private practice, represented 1-800-Contacts, and the senator’s chief of staff, Spencer Stokes, acted as a lobbyist for company.

    More hypocrisy from the Tea Party… What’s next? Is Lee going to divert federal contracts to his former employer Energy Solutions?

    Nobody in Utah likes that ba$tard.

    Speaking of Microsoft, Bill Gates might take the witness stand in Utah next month in Novell’s 7 year old lawsuit over WordPerfect. Of course this is all finally happening now that Microsoft essentially owns Novell.

    Why wasn’t Mike Lee looking into that anti trust issue? I guess it wouldn’t benefit him enough personally.

  • Anonymous

    What about patent troll Steve Jobs blocking Samsung just because he can’t play fair?

    We’ll tie that up in court for seven years just like when SCO claimed they owned Unix and drug that out in front of three different Judges.

blog comments powered by Disqus