A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
No, the title is not meant to imply a post about the privacy implications of mobile medical apps for psychotherapy. Instead, we’re taking a look at how the government acts at cross-purposes to itself when it comes to the oh-so-slow development of rules for new technologies and markets. The last few weeks have seen a couple of remarkable announcements, one from the FTC about digital advertising disclaimers and one from the SEC about corporate financial disclosures. Both were presented by the agencies as ways to enable use of social media by corporations — but instead just make things much harder, if not totally impracticable.
Two weeks ago, the Federal Trade Commission basically said “to heck” with form factor and responsive Web design by concluding that disclaimers, caveats and related mandatory advertising disclosures cannot be put into a popup window and must be in the same “conspicuous” format — font size and all — regardless of the device or medium.  The FDA had already cracked down on trailblazing pharma firms that tried Facebook advertisements on the same grounds. Both enforcement decisions demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with new media and an inability to flexibly apply the principles of regulatory schemes to changing circumstances.
Even if, unlike advertiser contentions, potential “Do Not Track” mandates for Web browsing would not kill the Internet content industry, the FTC has signaled it is prepared unilaterally to dictate the size of social media ads in the guise of consumer protection. The old guidance allowed for “proximity” of disclosures — that is, disclosures that were “near, and when possible, on the same screen.” The new guidance places heightened emphasis on disclosures being clear and conspicuous to consumers across all platforms. The newly announced principle is that disclosures should be “as close as possible,” with short form disclosures such as hyperlinks or hashtags permitted only when their meaning is understood by consumers.
Check out this remarkable assertion, for instance:
If a disclosure is necessary to prevent an advertisement from being deceptive, unfair or otherwise violative of a Commission rule, and if it is not possible to make the disclosure clear and conspicuous, then either the claim should be modified so the disclosure is not necessary or the ad should not be disseminated. Moreover, if a particular platform does not provide an opportunity to make clear and conspicuous disclosures, it should not be used to disseminate advertisements that require such disclosures.
A second and related announcement came on Tuesday from the Securities & Exchange Commission. The SEC is the federal agency which pioneered use of Facebook and other social media services in the corporate realm by providing 2008 guidance that release of corporate earnings and other “material” financial information can permissibly utilize social media. Yet now the same agency — after a fruitless investigation of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings for an innocuous Facebook post — says that companies may treat social media as legitimate outlets for communication, much like corporate Web sites or the agency’s own public filing system called Edgar, but first have to make clear which Twitter feeds or Facebook pages will serve as potential outlets for announcements.
It is difficult to reconcile these new regulatory positions with the objectives the agencies articulate. The SEC says it believes that “company disclosures should be more readily available to investors in a variety of locations and formats to facilitate investor access to that information,” but its actions only serve to make the choice of location and format more rigid, and with fines a potential consequence for those pursuing flexibility. Almost any lawyer counseling public company clients today will advise that financial information that in the future could be considered material by the SEC must be constrained to an official, designated Web page. So much for tweets, Facebook and other real-time forums, they’re just too risky — even though Hastings survived unscathed. The correct approach for the vast majority of the 13,000+ public companies in the U.S. is to steer clear of social media, at least for now, because the downside is simply too great.
Coming from a government that professes to want to encourage broader use of these new media, that’s classic bi-polarism, obviously not in a happy phase.
Note: Originally written for and reposted with permission of my law firm’s Information Intersection blog.
This article was published by the ABA Antitrust Section’s Unilateral Conduct Committee in its Monopoly Matters journal for Spring 2013. (Reprinted with permission.)
The recently closed Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) investigation of Google, Inc. for alleged monopolization[1] illustrates a truism of antitrust practice. The flexibility of antitrust law in adapting to new industries and modes of anticompetitive conduct is also a source of frustration, because the ex ante application of the domain’s broad principles to particular business practices is tricky to forecast without highly intensive, fact-specific analysis.
While a lot of ink was spilled following now-former Chairman Jon Leibowitz’s January 3, 2013 press conference, not much has attempted an analytical review of the merits. With the caveat that no outsider knows precisely what evidence the agency collected, this article tries to do just that. The lessons drawn are surprisingly unremarkable. Even in “new economy” industries, the tried-and-true elements of a monopolization claim remain crucial. Where unilateral conduct exhibits plausible efficiencies without serious evidence of competitive harm in a relevant market, it is impossible to make a viable case of monopoly maintenance under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (“Section 2”).
A. Market Definition
As every antitrust practitioner can recite, being a monopoly is not itself illegal, rather it is unlawful to obtain or maintain monopoly power by exclusionary or anticompetitive means in a relevant antitrust market. The existence of a putative “Internet search” market is thus a core proposition in any attack on Google for unlawful monopolization; the necessary premise is that Google’s high share — estimated to be anywhere between 65 to 80% — for Web searches is the foundation of an alleged monopoly.
Here the legal analysis begins to break down. Internet search is a free product for which consumers (Internet users) are charged nothing, with the service supported by advertising revenues. Since monopoly power is the power to control price or exclude competition, Google’s high “market share” may not in fact reflect any actual market power. More importantly, search users are like television viewers; they are an input into a different product, search advertising, in which consumers are effectively sold by virtue of advertising rates based largely on impressions and click-throughs. Just as NBC and ABC compete for television viewers in order to sell more advertising, so too do search engines monetize the service by selling Internet eyeballs to advertisers.[2]
Relevant market analysis must therefore focus on the area where Google in fact competes with other search engines, namely the sale of search advertising. There are two significant problems with a “search advertising” market. First, this market definition does nothing to advance the cause of complainants such as Yelp, Kayak and other so-called “vertical” competitors of Google’s non-search products, because they do not compete for search advertisers. Second, the relevant market cannot be so limited:
- Web search ads are good substitutes for display (e.g., banner) ads. Because advertisers pay for users who click through to their sites, both represent alternative ways to reach consumers. If Google raised prices for search ads,customers would switch more of their advertising dollars to display ads. And the Internet display ad segment is something in which Google has lagged well ll behind the leader, Facebook.
- Both search and display ads increasingly compete against mobile search ads. This rapidly growing segment is radically different, with searches designed to retrieve more targeted results and in which a near-majority of searches are performed within smartphone and tablet apps like OpenTable, FourSquare and others, bypassing traditional search engines.
- Advertising-supported Internet services increasingly compete with traditional media for revenues. Newspapers have lost huge swaths of advertising revenues — especially, though hardly just, classified ads to Craigslist, etc. — but are making money in digital advertising. Nearly 1/3 of the New York Times’ total revenue came from online ads as far back as 2010.[3]
Neither the Chairman’s press conference nor the FTC’s parallel opinion on standard-essential-patents reveal whether the Commission agreed search advertising is a relevant market. One point seems clear: whatever the FTC concluded in its 2007 Google-DoubleClick merger review,[4] there are precious little indicia today supporting either Internet search or search advertising as stand-alone product markets for Section 2 purposes. See, e.g., Peterson v. Google, Inc., 2007 U.S. DIST LEXIS 47920 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (no basis to distinguish search advertising from other Internet advertising in market definition). As the Commission cautioned in 2007, “accounting for the dynamic nature” of “the online advertising space … requires solid grounding in facts and the careful application of tested antitrust analysis.”[5]
B. Monopoly Power
This author has written elsewhere about The Fantasy Google Monopoly,[6] in which I observed that “the reality is that Google neither acts like nor is sheltered from competition like the monopolists of the past, something the company’s critics never claim because they just can’t.” The facts suggest that regardless of Google’s share in a properly defined market, Google does not enjoy market power.
No Bottleneck or “Gateway” Control. Ten years ago, when the FTC believed America Online had market power, the conclusion rested on the fact that a vertically integrated AOL controlled access to competing Internet content.[7] Much like the pre-divestiture Bell System, the concern was that AOL held a “bottleneck” through which consumers had to pass to reach rivals. Yet Google does not control the Internet’s physical network and is thus not a bottleneck. “Google, or any search engine, cannot be a gateway to the Internet.”[8]
No Power Over Price. Whether search ad rates are the price of search or alternatively the relevant antitrust market itself, they fail on the central criterion of control over price. Google’s search ads are priced via an auction system — the highest bidder for an advertising keyword buys at its winning bid price. Certainly, there are ways to game an auction to favor some bidders and exert indirect influence on price. But such a novel theory of auction pricing power was apparently not asserted in the FTC’s investigation of Google.
No Network Effects. Nothing symbolizes modern antitrust so much as an emphasis on “network effects.”[9] Network effects exist when the value of a product increases in proportion to the number of other users of the product, hence a name which originated in telephone antitrust cases. There is little to suggest there are significant network effects in search or search advertising. That Sears may buy some search ad keywords, for example, makes it only slightly more likely (and a consequence of retail competition, not Google) that Macy’s will purchase search ads.
No Entry Barriers. A monopoly in a market in which entry is unlimited cannot be sustained for long. It is difficult to make a serious case that there are substantial entry barriers in Internet search. Web page indexing, the key input, is a product of computing horsepower and storage capacity. Both are commodities with steadily falling prices, per Moore’s law, in today’s economy. That Facebook has recently launched its own search product[10] says it all: entry into search only requires investment capital, which the antitrust laws rightfully do not regard as an entry barrier.
“Data” Is Not a Search Entry Barrier. Proponents of a Google prosecution argued that the demographic data assembled from Web searches is a barrier to entry. Yet data about consumer preferences and behavior is also a commodity. Whether credit and commercial transaction data via the “big three” reporting agencies, consumer satisfaction data from J.C. Power or the emerging “big data” marketplace, data can easily be bought, in bulk, for cheap.[11] The corollary suggestion that economies of scale pose an insurmountable barrier to search entry represents an even more subtle concept which, unlike network effects, has not been recognized as a dispositive Section 2 factor — every large-scale business enjoys scale economies, after all.
C. Exclusionary Practices
The proponents of an FTC case obviously did not make a credible showing that Google’s search practices meet the requisite tests for exclusionary conduct — competition on a basis other than efficiency or the predatory sacrifice of short-term profits.[12] The failure was an analytical one, summed up with a Web ad running now, asking whether consumers can “trust” Google. Unfairness is a qualitative judgment that has nothing to do with current antitrust law. As the Supreme Court has written: “Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws; those laws do not create a federal law of unfair competition.”[13]
Search “Fairness” Is Not An Antitrust Obligation. The firms pushing for a prosecution contended that Google’s algorithms artificially lowered search results for specialized vertical rivals. Their theory that Web search has an inherent standard of fairness, something once called “search neutrality,” is epitomized by the name of the coalition that lobbied the FTC: FairSearch.org.
Dividing this issue into two parts, first consider whether such practices have an adverse effect on competition. Even if travel booking sites, for instance, compete with Google in search, there is no evidence that so-called link demotion diminishes their Web traffic. Some of these are the same companies that forecast Google would force them out of business but now boast of successful IPOs. Moreover, driving traffic to a website can easily be duplicated through other low-cost means, from email campaigns to QR codes.[14]
Second, consider whether there is a practical way to ferret out from Google’s constant tweaking of its algorithms which changes “demoted” quasi-search rivals. Since nearly everyone admits Google got to its present position by building a better search engine, the trade secret and IP consequences of such a monopolization theory are enforcement quicksand.
Most importantly, the changes Google makes to its search algorithms are designed to offer consumers a superior product. As Leibowitz summarized, “Google’s primary reason for changing the look and feel of its search results to highlight its own products was to improve the user experience.” [15] Where unilateral conduct exhibits such plausible efficiencies without evidence of substantial competitive harm, the exclusionary conduct element of a Section 2 case is not present.
Deception Without Much More Is Not Exclusionary. Former AAG Tom Barnett said in 2011 that the search firm acted anticompetitively because “Google’s display of search results is deceptive to users.”[16] Hardly. Although the Microsoft decision broke new legal ground in assessing when networks effects matter under Section 2, it did not create a “deception” prong of monopolization.[17] Lying may violate truth-in-advertising and consumer protection statutes, such as Section 5 of the FTC Act, but does not constitute anticompetitive conduct for Sherman Act purposes.
Use of Monopoly Power For “Leverage” Is Not Unlawful. A final problem with an FTC antitrust case was that it represented the discarded notion of monopoly leveraging. Vertical rivals like TripAdvisor and Kayak in reality compete with Google’s complementary content (e.g., Zagat and profiles) and sales (e.g., Google Checkout and ITA travel booking software) products. In other words, the claim is that Google uses its purported power in the search market to gain a competitive advantage in a second, different market. Of course, monopoly leveraging has been overruled as a stand-alone Section 2 violation.[18] Only if the competitive impact in the second market amounts to an attempt to monopolize is this sort of behavior illegal. It is impossible to conceive of an FTC complaint that could have credibly asserted there exists a “dangerous probability” Google would monopolize airline bookings, travel reviews or any other Internet content.
E. Durability
Consumer allegiance in technology is fleeting. The dramatically changed market positions of Myspace, Yahoo!, AOL and other, former online behemoths are the result of disruptive business models fueled by sweeping changes in underlying technology. No firm, including Google, is immune to such inflection points. With the accelerating substitution of apps, voice-response and social search (e.g., Apple’s Siri and Facebook’s Graph Search) — bolstered by evidence that in 2012, Google’s search advertising rates fell significantly for the first time[19] — there is little to suggest that any market power Google may hold exhibits the durability necessary for proof of monopoly power.[20]
F. Remedy
Chairman Leibowitz noted that the complainants had asked to “regulate the intricacies of Google’s search engine algorithm.”[21] The evident implication is one of institutional competence. Just as the Microsoft court articulated a policy of avoiding extension of per se rules like tying to volatile technology markets,[22] the FTC was obviously worried that delving into the innards of Google’s “secret sauce” could do more bad than good.
There is ample basis for caution. Witness, for instance, the 1982 AT&T consent decree, which most knowledgeable observers conclude transformed the Antitrust Division from a litigation agency into a de facto telecommunications regulator. While the FTC is better-positioned institutionally to act as regulator, it nonetheless shares the same antitrust policy bias favoring what the late Judge Harold Greene famously called the “surer, cleaner” remedy of divestiture.[23]
It is true that in vertical mergers, the enforcement agencies have more recently fashioned consent decrees which impose behavioral conditions. Yet the deferential judicial oversight of merger settlements “leaves the issue of remedies as one where the antitrust agencies possess considerable discretion.”[24] That ambiguity has led former enforcement officials to bemoan the departure from a “law enforcement” antitrust model in favor of a regulatory one where “antitrust counselors find themselves focusing, not just on whether conduct contemplated by their clients is illegal,” but on what agencies are likely to seek in the nature of remedies.[25]
The late Judge Robert Bork and Prof. Greg Sidak have observed that “a mandate that Google provide its competitors access to the top Google search positions through antitrust injunction or consent decree would be virtually impossible to enforce.”[26] There are no neutral or objective criteria on which to assess the appropriate listing order of search results; by its very nature, Internet search is an effort to predict the information users are looking to obtain. “Rankings” of Web sites are based on a myriad of factors (reciprocal links, hits, metadata, etc.) that is the role of search engines to interpolate. To wade into the morass of regulating the operations of Google’s algorithms would place the FTC in the untenable position of deciding, as a legal matter, the business merits of nearly every change to the highly automated delivery of search results. As the Court emphasized in Trinko, antitrust remedies are inappropriate if they require courts “to act as central planners, identifying the proper price, quantity and other terms of dealing — a role for which they are ill suited.”[27] That is surely a recipe for subjectivity and ultimately disaster.
Conclusion
Unlike in the EU, a Federal Trade Commission decision not to institute enforcement action does not result in a formal opinion. That hinders exploration of the antitrust analysis utilized by the agency in closing its two-year monopolization investigation of Google. Deconstructing that analysis with informed inferences nonetheless reveals that the FTC faced a daunting task in seeking to hold Google accountable under Section 2. The decision to fold-up its tent represents an admirable instance of prosecutorial restraint by an agency that had been very publicly hounded by Google’s rivals.
* Glenn Manishin was counsel to MCI in the AT&T antitrust case and served as a principal lawyer for ProComp (AOL, Oracle, Sun, etc.) and several software trade associations in the Microsoft monopolization case. Manishin does not represent Google.
[1] See Google Press Conference, Opening Remarks of FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Jan. 3, 2013, http://ht.ly/ j0vWQ (“Leibowitz Remarks”); In re Motorola Mobility LLC, a limited liability company, and Google Inc., a corporation, FTC File No. 121 0120 (Jan. 3, 2013), http://ht.ly/j0jcm.
[17] 253 F. 3d 34, 84 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc). Microsoft was held liable under Section 2 for deceiving Java developers that programs written with Microsoft’s Java tools would be OS-indifferent. In reality, the Microsoft interface created Windows-only Java apps that would not run on any other platform, thus reinforcing the Windows desktop monopoly. No one argues that Google has tricked advertisers or search users into utilizing Google products when they thought they were creating a Google-free computing environment.
Given news that a European consortium of rivals has submitted yet another monopolization complaint against Google to the EU Commission, it is time to take stock of where we are in this long-running saga. A month ago the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) dropped its independent investigation, concluding that the facts did not support an antitrust prosecution of Google. Since then, the rhetoric from Google’s critics has reached absurd levels.
For instance, Bloomberg ran an editorial titled The FTC’s Missed Opportunity On Google. There the editors opined that “The FTC missed an opportunity to explore publicly one of the paramount questions of our day: is Google abusing its role as gatekeeper to the digital economy?” It is unfortunate that a leading American business publication could have so little understanding of competition policy and the role of antitrust law in policing the U.S. market economy. The editorial starts from an incorrect premise and proceeds to suggest, of all Luddite things, regulation of Internet search engines as “a public utility of sorts for e-commerce.” That’s obviously the theme of Google’s commercial rivals, but it’s neither correct nor appropriate.
Google’s alleged search dominance is hardly that of a gatekeeper. The fact is that Google neither acts like nor is sheltered from competition like the monopolists of the past, something the company’s critics never claim because they just can’t. Google succeeds only by running faster than its competitors. There’s nothing about Internet search that locks users into Google’s search engine or its many other products. Nor is new entry at all difficult. There are few, if any, scale economies in search and the acquisition of “big data” in today’s digital environment is relatively low cost, due to massively scalable storage architecture. Microsoft’s impressive growth of Bing in a mere three or so years shows that new competition in search can come at any time. Facebook’s recent, disruptive entry into search, leveraging its own trove of personalized user data, proves the point. As a result, Google remains surrounded by scores if not hundreds of competing providers of search, and succeeds relative to those rivals because its algorithms and search results are deemed superior (more accurate and useable) by Web patrons.
So what of this supposed “gatekeeper” role? North Korea is a gatekeeper to Internet content for its repressed citizens, but Google has none of that awesome economic and censorship power. If Google were really a search or Internet advertising monopolist, it would increase price like all classic monopolists, because monopoly power gives a firm the ability to do so. Yet Google search is a free product, supported by advertising. And that advertising is not priced by Google itself, rather through an auction among advertisers bidding on the use of search keywords. Google doesn’t control price, let alone raise prices. In fact, as its 2012 SEC filings admit, AdWords prices have fallen 15% in recent quarters.
The facts on the ground simply do not support the claim that Google’s search engine represents a bottleneck through which rivals must pass to gain website traffic. “Vertical” search competitors such as Yelp get nearly 50% of their traffic from smartphone apps, bypassing search engines, and thus Google, entirely. The only empirical data point supporting the Bloomberg thesis is that Web users tend to click much more on links displayed on the first or second pages of search results. But consumer inertia, lethargy or laziness doesn’t make Google itself any more powerful; and it certainly is no basis for antitrust intervention.
The call by the FTC to stay out of Internet search was a dispassionate end to a highly politicized investigation. Stripped of rhetoric, the Commission’s chairman, hardly a wallflower when it comes to aggressive enforcement, realized that the risk of transforming U.S. antitrust enforcers from prosecutors to regulators — something all knowledgeable antitrust lawyers regard as anathema — is very substantial in the area of Internet search. Search is inherently subjective, since its object is to produce results predicted to best satisfy a user’s interests. There is no objective standard against which to gauge the reliability, rank or relevance of Web sites in response to a search query. So putting Google under the antitrust lens for how it treats its own links versus so-called “organic” search results would embroil federal antitrusters in the Vietnam of Internet oversight, where ad hoc rules must be made up and the only way to “save” the search market would be to cripple the algorithms Google has used to make it the most popular search engine in the world. Further, treating Google as a public utility is nonsense in an era when even telephone and cable television companies, which have long-standing geographic exclusivities and control real bottleneck monopoly facilities, are no longer regulated as utilities.
Continue reading A Vietnam of Internet Regulation
Politics is too often about making promises elected officials may be unable to (or even know they cannot) deliver. Yet where law enforcement is concerned — especially antitrust, which directly affects the economic future of our country — politics typically yields subjective and biased results. So it is with much irony that competitors of Google recently began a very public political offensive aimed at pressuring the Federal Trade Commission to sue the Web search giant for unlawful monopolization.
This is not the first such initiative, just the most unprincipled and wrong-headed. Citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported recently that the nearly two-year antitrust investigation by the FTC of competitor complaints against Google would end soon with a settlement “without addressing the most serious charge” of alleged “search bias.” Those same competitors have, in response, dramatically accused the FTC of abandoning its “institutional integrity” and begun actively shopping for a more receptive audience at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, saying they “are losing faith that the FTC will act forcefully on their complaints.”
Every competition lawyer can repeat the maxim that the antitrust laws protect competition, not competitors. That means hitting competitors where it hurts is a good thing because it helps consumers. So media leaks, revealing that — despite a committed chairman and the hiring of a high-profile litigator to bring a case against Google to trial — the FTC uncovered no evidence that any “manipulation” of search results actually harmed consumers, are revealing. Revealing the absence of legitimate grounds to file a search monopolization case against Google, that is. A settlement that does not include restrictions on Google’s Web search activities is not one which fails to “address” that serious charge, however, but instead one that eschews politicized antitrust enforcement in favor of following the evidence. When there is no compelling proof of a legal violation, prosecutors should and, absent outside interference usually will, stand down.
This author has said before that the idea of “search neutrality” — positing some objective standard for search engine results — is an oxymoron and an invalid basis for antitrust liability. What the search complainants and their lawyers, like Silicon Valley’s outspoken Gary Reback, do not get is that governmental intervention in a dynamic, rapidly evolving industry, in which the dominant firm of today was hardly a speck merely a decade ago and has no power to force anyone to use its services, smacks of subjectivity. Are the antitrust lawyers and economists in the federal government supposed to function as a Federal Search Commission? Should the FTC ask federal judges and juries to determine when search result rankings are “fair” and, if so, how could anyone possibly make that determination?
Even apart from the reality that the settled legal elements of monopolization are totally absent when applied to Google (market share, monopoly power over prices, barriers to entry, network effects, etc.), that has always been the Achilles’ Heel of the complaining competitors like Yelp and their FairSearch.org coalition. Google’s search algorithms represent its secret sauce and crown jewels, the code that tumbled Yahoo and long-forgotten firms like Alta Vista from their perch as erstwhile Web search leaders. Looking under the search hood would effectively put the federal government in the position of confiscating, or at least deflating the value, of those trade secrets. To do so under the guise of “fairness” is doubly misguided; the Supreme Court has definitively ruled that firms have no duty of fairness nor to assist rivals, and that even the most malicious attacks against individual competitors do not, without adverse consequences to broader market competition, give rise to an antitrust offense.
The media reports indicating that its antitrust investigation found no evidence of consumer harm in search or search advertising simply show that the FTC has done the right thing. As FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch remarked, it is “not embarrassing” for the agency to vote not to bring a case, because the commission is “just doing its job.” No amount of taunting from competitors will or can change that fact. Far from a cop out, this is what we pay these public officials to do, in a dispassionate and principled manner. Keeping an open mind until the facts are collected and sorted through is commendable for public law enforcement officials, the opposite of an abdication of responsibility.
In this context, turning to the Justice Department in the face of the FTC’s conclusions is unseemly. Justice reviewed and approved Google’s earlier acquisition of travel software provider ITA, imposing competition conditions but pointedly not accepting FairSearch’s claims that the antitrust laws compel search neutrality. The FTC and DOJ agreed that the former would conduct the broader federal investigation into Google’s search practices. Unlike the Microsoft antitrust case of 1998, where the FTC was frozen into inaction by a deadlock, here the FTC appears to have at least a majority, if not unanimity, against a monopolization prosecution. It is Mr. Reback and his clients who should be embarrassed by their brazen forum-shopping, not the FTC and its chairman, which have conducted a thorough and careful investigation. That competitors do not like the result is sour grapes, rather than a failure of will by the antitrust agencies. Governmental prudence toward search neutrality represents wisdom, not capitulation.
Glenn Manishin is an antitrust partner with Troutman Sanders in Washington, D.C. He represented MCI in the United States v. AT&T antitrust case and several competitive software trade associations in the United States v. Microsoft case. He does not represent Google.
Note: Reposted with permission from Law360.
Yesterday the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission did something routine. It issued a so-called “Wells-notice” against a company, charging the firm preliminarily with releasing confidential financial information to a select portion of the market, instead of publicly to all investors as required by Reg FD (“fair disclosure”). What is remarkable, and potentially troubling, is that the basis for the charge was a short social media message by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, reposted on the company’s public Facebook page.
As Law360 explained:
Netflix Inc. and its CEO Reed Hastings could face action by the SEC over Hastings’ July post revealing that Netflix members had watched more than one billion hours that month, the online video service said in a regulatory filing Thursday. Netflix and Hastings received a Wells notice on Wednesday that said the company could face either a cease-and-desist or civil injunctive suit for fair-disclosure violations allegedly prompted by the posting on the social networking site, according to an SEC filing by Netflix.
The juxaposition of a good-intentioned securities regulation and the disruptive impact of new technology could not be clearer. In his post, Hastings congratulated the Netflix team for a job well done in early July, noting the one billion hours of video delivered to subscribers the previous month. The message was just 43 words. In the usual social media fashion, the post was forwarded by his followers. Bloggers picked up on it. Media reports cited it.
So what’s the deal? Technically, Netflix had not filed an “8K” update with that data at the SEC nor issued a traditional press release. But the company had revealed the 1B streaming hours in its public blog well before the CEO’s Facebook post. And in 2008, the SEC became the first federal agency to recognize the growing communications functions of blogs by issuing landmark guidance saying that corporate use of blogs for release of material financial information would satisfy Reg FD.
In this context, the action against Hastings seems to make little sense. Even if the prior blog post had not disclosed the 1B figure adequately, Hastings’ post was open to more than 200,000 followers of his Facebook page, could be “subscribed” by anyone (“friends” or not) and was widely and immediately disseminated, both in social and traditional media. Had Hastings done this via a Twitter DM (direct message) or a private Facebook message to one or more individual friends, that would be completely different. But his post was public and thoroughly publicized.
That’s the precise purpose of Reg FD. But the SEC’s Wells notice illustrates that even government agencies that “get it” technically are often trapped in outmoded world views. It’s one thing for a public company CEO to post messages about financial performance on financial chat rooms and lists, under a pseudonym, to pump up trading volume artificially. It’s quite another for bureaucrats to decide that unless one uses the obsolescent technology of the past, public disclosures are inadequate. Would the SEC also suggest that a webinar, rather than telephonic conference call, is insufficient under Reg FD when announcing earnings guidance because not all investors have broadband Web access? That is hardly a sensible result.
We’ve written a lot in this blog about social media policies and how to reduce enterprise legal exposure. The irony of the Netflix case is that a company and executive who seem to have had a valid policy and followed the government’s own guidelines for use of social media has been targeted in a possible enforcement action nonetheless. That raises the spectre, which numerous commentators noted in connection with more a recent SEC alert on social media usage by investment advisors, that vague agency guidelines may lead to policy making by criminal complaint, rather than rules of general applicability. If that is the case with regard to blogs and Facebook as mechanisms for Reg FD compliant disclosures, there’s an equally great risk that these new modes of communication and interaction will be rendered impotent for corporate purposes due to the unknown scope of potential SEC exposure. That’s a bad result which everyone should hope we do not reach.
Note: Originally written for and reposted with permission of my law firm’s Information Intersection blog.
Disintermediation is the heart of the Internet’s value proposition; cutting out the middleman in order to reduce distribution costs at scale. Now the first and best example of this point, Amazon.com, is quietly going a bit in the other direction.
According to a report Monday by Reuters, Amazon is installing “lockers” in 1,800 Staples office supply stores nationwide. These are not cloud-based digital content lockers, but instead large automated dispensing machines.
The Amazon lockers at Staples will allow online shoppers to have packages sent to the office supply chain’s stores. Amazon already has such storage units at grocery, convenience and drug stores, many of which stay open around the clock. Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest Internet retailer, is trying to let customers avoid having to wait for ordered packages due to a missed delivery.
The reason for Amazon’s move, which Seattle-based GeekWire says was quietly launched a year ago, is not difficult to figure out. The “last 30 yards” are the most important part of its supply chain, for which Amazon largely relies on UPS. Yet as consumers, especially Americans, now spend little or no time at home during business hours, there is often no one available at the shipping address to receive packages. That makes the opportunity cost of buying from Amazon, namely the time required for delivery, higher than otherwise the case, in turn making alternatives such as Walmart, Apple and Best Buy in-store pick-up or RedBox DVD rental kiosks far more attractive to buyers. Marketing experts call this the “omnichannel” retail strategy, designed to prevent “showrooming.”
The irony is clear. A company born on the Web, one that essentially birthed the distinction between virtual and brick-and-mortar retailing, is making a big investment (including whatever undisclosed fees it will pay to Staples) in the very companies its business model threatens. While Apple’s retail stores may have been unexpected for a PC manufacturer, they represented an incremental change to the company’s distribution system. Amazon, in contrast, is moving stealthily into a new, mixed-mode business model that embraces part of the IRL retailing segment it once promised to make irrelevant.
Whether this will make a competitive difference remains to be seen. Consumers can now (literally) vote with their feet.
Note: Originally prepared for and reposted with permission of the Disruptive Competition Project.
The week before last I participated in a conference on mobile payment technologies. I expected to find out more about Square and other startups that have begun to revolutionize credit card acceptance by solo businesses like food trucks. What I learned instead is that this nascent industry is way bigger than the emerging near-field communications (NFC) protocol Apple unexpectedly did not include in its new iPhone 5. More surprisingly, it seems the biggest attraction for inventors and investors isn’t the payment transactions themselves at all.
Some take-aways:
- A bunch of different technologies are competing at the standards/platform level for mobile payment processing. These include EMV, Isis and TSM, as well as NFC. A major driver in adoption is that new ventures are cutting deals with point-of-sale (POS) equipment vendors to integrate their protocols into the next software updates for these ubiquitous checkout devices. The biggest barrier to adoption is security and PCI compliance.
- Many of the largest U.S. retailers (7-Eleven, Walmart, Sears, Best Buy, etc.) have teamed up in a joint venture called MCX, which has yet to decide on a common approach to use of smartphones as payment devices. By virtue of their ubiquity, the MCX players may have the scale to make their selection of mobile payment technology an inflection point in this transformation.
- The advantage of mobile payments to retailers is not simply allowing consumers a convenient way to make purchases. Rather, it is the Holy Grail of demographic, time and location information allowing Location Based Marketing (LBM) in the “last three feet.” By capturing GPS-enabled location data, using wireless geofencing to engage in push/pull marketing interactions — think shopkick and the like (disclaimer: shopkick has been a client of mine) — and mining that data, mobile payment companies will know more about consumer preferences and behavior than SKU-level retailers or the major credit card processors like Visa and MasterCard.
This presents some interesting questions from a business and social perspective. Will and should the same liability approach used for traditional credit cards, quite protective of the consumer, apply where the credit card is essentially integrated into a smartphone? How will mobile POS (MPOS) technologies change the retail experience, for instance use of swipeable tablets by sales clerks for “line-busting” at peak sales hours?  Will consumers be more comfortable with non-persistent technologies that utilize one-off QR codes for payment authentication than the always on NFC payment “wallet” backed by Google? Given the shambles of our national financial regulatory system in the U.S. post-2008, which of the slew of federal agencies, from the Federal Reserve to the much-maligned CFPB, will have jurisdiction to regulate this new market, and what sort of regulation is appropriate?
Several months ago I asked, only partially in jest, whether technology had finally made currency irrelevant. Mobile payment technologies are only in their infancy in America, which lags well behind Japan and the EU. But in light of the scale of the U.S. economy, what the markets do here can have a profound effect on financial practices worldwide. The problem is that because the American approach to data privacy and ownership — where the manufacturer or merchant owns the transactional records — is so different, the driver of MPOS innovation here may not translate well abroad. Jerry Maguire’s catch phrase must be refined a bit, because mobile payment innovation in the U.S. wants to be shown the data, not the money.
Note: Originally prepared for and reposted with permission of the Disruptive Competition Project.
Nice quote! 😉 Glenn Manishin, a Washington antitrust lawyer who represented plaintiffs in the Microsoft antitrust case, said a case against Google would be “uncharted” legal territory, and markedly different from the Microsoft case.
Late Friday afternoon, several stories appeared quoting unnamed sources that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has received a staff memo recommending an antitrust prosecution of Google. Now, in a letter just days ago to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Colorado Rep. Jared Polis — founder of bluemountain.com and ProFlowers.com — counseled that an FTC monopolization case against Google could lead to legislative blowback.
I believe that application of antitrust against Google would be a woefully misguided step that would threaten the very integrity of our antitrust system, and could ultimately lead to congressional action resulting in a reduction in the ability of the FTC to enforce critical antitrust protections in industries where markets are being distorted by monopolies or oligopolies.
Google Antitrust Action Could Cost FTC Power, Dem Warns | Law360. That’s consistent with what I suggested in my five-part series Why An FTC Case Against Google Is A Really Bad Idea, but of course goes even further as my legal analysis did not address potential political or legislative reaction to a formal FTC complaint.
Meanwhile, commentators are whacking each other silly. Sam Gustin observed in TimeBusiness that “Microsoft and its anti-Google allies have spent untold millions waging an overt and covert campaign designed to persuade regulators to hobble the search leader. Perhaps if these companies spent a little less time complaining and a little more time innovating, they’d have a better chance of competing in the marketplace.” In response, John Paczkowski at AllThingsDigital noted the Polis letter’s “fortuitous timing” and implied that it “seems a bit odd” for a junior legislator to threaten a sitting FTC chairman, concluding that “maybe we should all wait and see the FTC’s evidence and the merits of its case — if there is one — before threatening to limit the agency’s authority.”
It is clear to any objective observer that there is a case in the works and that the FTC, which on background leaked that four of five commissioners are already on board, sent a trial balloon out through the press last week. Paczkowski is naive if he believes the timing of the stories last Friday was also not “fortuitous” or that the “merits” of the FTC’s case may not properly be a matter of policy and political debate. Having witnessed this same pas de deux for years in connection with United States v. Microsoft Corp., it’s just business as usual in Washington, DC. That may not make it right or courteous, but it does make it completely unexceptional.
[This series of posts dissects the threatened FTC antitrust case against Google and concludes that a monopolization prosecution by the federal government would be a very bad idea. We divide the topic into five parts, one policy and four legal. Check out Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV.]
The FTC, a federal agency established in 1914, enjoys some unique powers. It can prosecute some claims before an Administrative Law Judge instead of the courts. Additionally, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) allows the agency to challenge “unfair methods of competition.” Use of Section 5, expanded to include “unfair or deceptive practices” in 1938, has received a rather checkered reaction from the federal judiciary.
There have been hints by the FTC that it may rely on Section 5 as the basis for a potential case against Google. This strategy could have serious repercussions because the FTC’s use of unfair competition as a surrogate for what the antitrust laws do not or cannot reach would be unbounded from the rigorous Sherman Act standards of unlawful monopolization. The FTC has never won a pure Section 5 lawsuit before.
5. A “Pure” Section 5 Case Would Almost Certainly Lose, And Should
There is one point of law on which everyone agrees. As the Supreme Court held, Section 5 can reach business conduct that is not, of itself, violative of the antitrust laws. But exactly how far the statute extends beyond the Sherman Act is unclear; in the FTC’s 2008 public workshop on Section 5 As A Competition Statute there was much debate on that issue. Here’s how the FTC described the problem:
The precise reach of Section 5 and its relationship to other antitrust statutes has long been a matter of debate. The Supreme Court observed in Indiana Federation of Dentists that the “standard of ‘unfairness’ under the FTC Act is, by necessity, an elusive one, encompassing not only practices that violate the Sherman Act and the other antitrust laws but also practices that the Commission determines are against public policy for other reasons.” In the early 1980s, however, lower courts were critical of efforts by the FTC to enforce a reading of Section 5 that captured conduct falling outside the Sherman Act. In striking down the FTC’s orders, the Second Circuit in its “Ethyl” decision expressed concern that the Commission’s theory of liability failed “to discriminate between normally acceptable business behavior and conduct that is unreasonable or unacceptable.”
The vast majority of non-merger FTC cases enforce the Sherman Act. However, beginning in the early 1990s the Commission reached a number of consent agreements involving invitations to collude, practices that facilitate collusion or collusion-like results in the absence of an agreement, and misconduct relating to standard setting. Because the complaints in these cases did not allege all the elements of a Sherman Act violation, the Commission’s theory of liability rested on a broader reach of Section 5. As consent decrees, none of these cases was reviewed, let alone endorsed, by the courts.
And that’s the rub. Take “invitations to collude” for instance. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, an agreement among competitors, whether express or tacit, is the predicate to illegality. This has been interpreted to mean attempts at price-fixing are not unlawful unless the other company says “yes.” Famously, the Justice Department initially lost, but then won on appeal, a 1982 challenge to American Airlines’ overt attempt at fixing airfare rates using an antitrust theory of attempted joint monopolization, fashioned to end-run the requirement of a horizontal agreement. That case presented unique market circumstances (American and Braniff sharing dominance of Dallas “hub” flights) and unequivocally anticompetitive behavior that lacked any efficiency or competitive justification.  Most antitrust scholars and practitioners thus generally agree that an invitation to fix prices is something the FTC should, as it has in the past, prosecute pursuant to Section 5, because the underlying conduct itself has no economic legitimacy other than to override marketplace competition.
Hence the problem where Google is concerned. First, there is a recognized basis under Section 2 for attacking unilateral attempts to monopolize a relevant market. Absent the necessary dangerous probability of success, something woefully lacking here, an unfair competition case premised on conduct by a dominant firm that falls short of attempted monopolization is very likely to receive the same hostile judicial reaction the Commission acknowledged in 2008. Second, as private unfair competition cases (which may only be brought under state law, not Section 5) have explained, the absence of legitimate business justification can support an inference of anticompetitive behavior. Yet, in organizing and structuring its organic search results, no one disputes that Google has a real business justification to deliver better results to users and thus more eyeballs to advertisers: in other words to make money. Without the predatory sacrifice of short-run profits — i.e., with normal, profit-maximizing behavior — there is real economic legitimacy to the conduct forming the basis for a case against Google.
Continue reading Why An FTC Case Against Google Is A Really Bad Idea (Part V)
|
|
April 8th, 2013 | 
Tags: 
Category: 
