Google, Facebook and Twitter have much in common. All three firms are very popular web-based companies that have pioneered or reinvented their primary area of expertise. All three businesses are American companies that have changed how the world uses the internet. Of particular note, all three companies provide their primary services to consumers for free.
Also of note, all three firms are either under FTC investigation (Google and Twitter) or are the subject of a petition to the FTC to be investigated (Facebook).
The antitrust-related investigations of some of the country’s most innovative companies which provide consumers with unlimited free services raises questions about applying old-fashioned “trust-busting” models of antitrust enforcement to the internet.
Before continuing with their investigations, the FTC needs to develop a transparent metric for evaluating the competitiveness of web-based services. Otherwise the agency will lack a sound intellectual and legal framework for their work which opens the door to agency inadvertently harming, not enhancing, the competitiveness of American business and consumer welfare.
To ensure FTC compliance with the “good government” laws that regulate the regulators, CRE is considering filing a petition with the Commission seeking: 1) agency disclosure of any metrics they are using to evaluate the companies; and 2) a request for public comment on the FTC’s metrics.
Google Antitrust Reviews Said to Be Split by Two U.S. Agencies
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/19/bloomberg1376-LOMZ9Q1A74E901-6GLB25AH2I5LDJO468EK11N01R.DTL#ixzz1SjXp1Nmp
July 19 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission ended two years of jockeying to lead an antitrust probe of Google Inc. by agreeing to divide their responsibilities, two people familiar with the matter said.
Under the arrangement, the Justice Department Antitrust Division will review any planned acquisitions by Google for their possible effects on competition, the people said. The FTC will conduct a broad investigation of the company’s dominance of Internet search, they said on condition of anonymity because details of the agencies’ accord are confidential.
The agreement resolves a tug-of-war between the two agencies since at least 2008 over which would take the lead in investigating Mountain View, California-based Google’s business operations. The division of labor should make it easier for Google to respond to the agencies’ inquiries, said Eleanor Fox, a law professor at New York University.
“In mergers, Google can concentrate on DOJ. For conduct, they can concentrate on FTC Fox said in an interview. “It’s not a horrible position for Google to be in. They just have to comply with the law.”
Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich declined to comment.
Google disclosed on June 24 that the FTC has begun a review of its business practices and said it would work with the agency to answer questions about its services.
The European Union and the state of Texas have begun probes of Google’s dominant position. New York and California are in the early stages of an antitrust investigation, a person with knowledge of the matter said last month.
Admeld Acquisition
The Justice Department is reviewing Google’s acquisition of Admeld Inc., an Internet advertising company that would help Google increase its share of the online advertising market, said two people familiar with the matter last month.
“The FTC is looking at how Google operates in the marketplace, how Google processes information, how Google does business,” said Alicia Batts, an antitrust lawyer with Proskauer Rose LLP in Washington. “If you are looking at a deal, you are only looking at issues related to that deal.”
Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona declined to comment on the agencies’ agreement or the Admeld review.
A Justice Department probe could expand beyond that specific transaction if Google is found to be exhibiting a pattern of behavior that violates antitrust laws, one of the people familiar with the investigation said. Any information the department discovers relating to the FTC probe likely would be shared with that agency, the person said.
‘Measure of Coordination’
“There will have to be some measure of coordination,” Craig Waldman, a San Francisco-based partner at Jones Day who wasn’t briefed on the agencies’ agreement, said in an interview.
Last year, the Justice Department said it uncovered information during a review of a move by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to buy Physicians Health plan of Mid-Michigan that helped spur a larger investigation.
The Justice Department and the Michigan attorney general’s office sued Blue Cross in October for allegedly entering anti- competitive agreements that raised hospital prices.
On rare occasions, the FTC and Justice Department have examined whether the same company is using its dominance to quash competition. In 1990, the FTC opened an antitrust investigation of Microsoft Corp., only for the agency’s commissioners three years later to deadlock 2-2 on whether to file charges.
Consent Decree
The Justice Department soon took over the case, culminating in a 10-year consent decree signed in 2001 by the government and Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft.
In most cases, the Justice Department and the FTC split the responsibility of enforcing U.S. antitrust laws depending on the agencies’ areas of expertise. With some big companies, such as Google and Apple Inc., the agencies have alternated on reviewing transactions.
The FTC has scrutinized Google’s acquisitions of AdMob Inc. and DoubleClick Inc. along with claims that its Buzz social- networking service violated privacy rights. The Justice Department examined Google’s acquisition of ITA Software, a potential advertising alliance with Yahoo! Inc. and Google’s plan to create a digital library.
A condition for the Justice Department’s approval of the ITA acquisition requires Google to report to government officials any anti-competitive complaints it receives.
‘Experience With Google’
“Both agencies have a lot of experience with Google, but I don’t think there’s much extra value in having two different agencies looking at the same company at the same time,” said Phil Malone, a professor at Harvard Law School who served the government’s lead counsel in the antitrust case against Microsoft.
Merger reviews are tied somewhat to a timetable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act — the law governing the antitrust review of proposed acquisitions. Monopoly investigations don’t have a specific timeframe.
During a merger review, Google must hand over to the government important documents on a deal in as little as 30 days, making it unnecessary to subpoena the information.
In cases when the government wants to do a more in-depth investigation, the 30-day time period is extended.
–Editors: Jim Rubin, Fred Strasser
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/19/bloomberg1376-LOMZ9Q1A74E901-6GLB25AH2I5LDJO468EK11N01R.DTL#ixzz1SjXRtuR2
Google Antitrust Reviews Said to Be Split by Two U.S. Agencies
July 19 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission ended two years of jockeying to lead an antitrust probe of Google Inc. by agreeing to divide their responsibilities, two people familiar with the matter said.
Under the arrangement, the Justice Department Antitrust Division will review any planned acquisitions by Google for their possible effects on competition, the people said. The FTC will conduct a broad investigation of the company’s dominance of Internet search, they said on condition of anonymity because details of the agencies’ accord are confidential.
The agreement resolves a tug-of-war between the two agencies since at least 2008 over which would take the lead in investigating Mountain View, California-based Google’s business operations. The division of labor should make it easier for Google to respond to the agencies’ inquiries, said Eleanor Fox, a law professor at New York University.
“In mergers, Google can concentrate on DOJ. For conduct, they can concentrate on FTC Fox said in an interview. “It’s not a horrible position for Google to be in. They just have to comply with the law.”
Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich declined to comment.
Google disclosed on June 24 that the FTC has begun a review of its business practices and said it would work with the agency to answer questions about its services.
The European Union and the state of Texas have begun probes of Google’s dominant position. New York and California are in the early stages of an antitrust investigation, a person with knowledge of the matter said last month.
Admeld Acquisition
The Justice Department is reviewing Google’s acquisition of Admeld Inc., an Internet advertising company that would help Google increase its share of the online advertising market, said two people familiar with the matter last month.
“The FTC is looking at how Google operates in the marketplace, how Google processes information, how Google does business,” said Alicia Batts, an antitrust lawyer with Proskauer Rose LLP in Washington. “If you are looking at a deal, you are only looking at issues related to that deal.”
Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona declined to comment on the agencies’ agreement or the Admeld review.
A Justice Department probe could expand beyond that specific transaction if Google is found to be exhibiting a pattern of behavior that violates antitrust laws, one of the people familiar with the investigation said. Any information the department discovers relating to the FTC probe likely would be shared with that agency, the person said.
‘Measure of Coordination’
“There will have to be some measure of coordination,” Craig Waldman, a San Francisco-based partner at Jones Day who wasn’t briefed on the agencies’ agreement, said in an interview.
Last year, the Justice Department said it uncovered information during a review of a move by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to buy Physicians Health plan of Mid-Michigan that helped spur a larger investigation.
The Justice Department and the Michigan attorney general’s office sued Blue Cross in October for allegedly entering anti- competitive agreements that raised hospital prices.
On rare occasions, the FTC and Justice Department have examined whether the same company is using its dominance to quash competition. In 1990, the FTC opened an antitrust investigation of Microsoft Corp., only for the agency’s commissioners three years later to deadlock 2-2 on whether to file charges.
Consent Decree
The Justice Department soon took over the case, culminating in a 10-year consent decree signed in 2001 by the government and Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft.
In most cases, the Justice Department and the FTC split the responsibility of enforcing U.S. antitrust laws depending on the agencies’ areas of expertise. With some big companies, such as Google and Apple Inc., the agencies have alternated on reviewing transactions.
The FTC has scrutinized Google’s acquisitions of AdMob Inc. and DoubleClick Inc. along with claims that its Buzz social- networking service violated privacy rights. The Justice Department examined Google’s acquisition of ITA Software, a potential advertising alliance with Yahoo! Inc. and Google’s plan to create a digital library.
A condition for the Justice Department’s approval of the ITA acquisition requires Google to report to government officials any anti-competitive complaints it receives.
‘Experience With Google’
“Both agencies have a lot of experience with Google, but I don’t think there’s much extra value in having two different agencies looking at the same company at the same time,” said Phil Malone, a professor at Harvard Law School who served the government’s lead counsel in the antitrust case against Microsoft.
Merger reviews are tied somewhat to a timetable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act — the law governing the antitrust review of proposed acquisitions. Monopoly investigations don’t have a specific timeframe.
During a merger review, Google must hand over to the government important documents on a deal in as little as 30 days, making it unnecessary to subpoena the information.
In cases when the government wants to do a more in-depth investigation, the 30-day time period is extended.
–Editors: Jim Rubin, Fred Strasser