Question1
Everyone know that Google is a market leader and their search engine has more than 90% market share in European nations. Last year Google was held responsible for antitrust and this company was asked to pay the 2.4 billion Euro in the name of fine. EU argued that Google used their dominance in order to hurt and stop competitors from doing business. Wherever a person search for a something then at the top of result page they only see those product and services which Google want them to see. If a person wants to search for a particular brand then instead of showing only that brand, Google also provide them information about other brands or products who paid this company (Manne and Wright, 2011). EU claim that this organization is using their dominance in order to restrict their competitors from growing and they are only supporting those companies who have paid Google for promoting their products or services. This whole case is related to ''Google shopping''. This is service which was started by company in 2002, user are allow to search whatever products on online websites. They can compare price and find large number of vendors.
EU claimed that Google is giving more as space to ''Google shopping'' on Google's search result page. They are not giving an equal opportunities to the other merchants who also want to advertise their products on result page. Company is doing this because they want to support ''Google shopping''. Google, on the other hand, said that they did not do anything wrong and comparison shopping services can bid for the ad space if they want to depict their service on the result page. Company argued that they have a bidding system and anyone can take part in it. ''Google shopping'' took part in auction and they bought the ad space. Spokesperson of Google said that Google shopping is a separate business and they have not given then ad space without organising an auction (Haucap and Heimeshoff, 2014).
From above case, one thing is very clear that Google is facing a great ethical dilemma. Google may have organised an auction for the ad space but they that no company will like to take part in it because companies that that ''Google shopping'' and Google are different companies on paper but not in market. Comparison shopping services often give argument that they bid billions of dollars for the ad space but they will never get it because Google shopping will always bet more money. They argue that Google shopping do not have to pay the amount which they will bid because Google and Google shopping are same company. Even if they will pay the amount then it will go in the same house so Google shopping would not have any problem in paying bidding amount because it will remain in the house. One cannot ignore the arguments of ''comparison shopping services'' because they are genuine and these kind of things has happened in market many time. This proves that if Google will organise auction that it would not result in fair play game and if they will not organise a bidding procedure for renting ad space than there is no chance that anyone will believe that they are giving equal opportunities to other player of the market. Google is in a situation where they will always be seen as a culprit because ''Google shopping'' is in a business which is very controversial. When Google was fined in this case then their spokesperson put a huge pressure on the making the comments that Google and ''Google shopping'' are two separate entity and they should not be seen together (Almunia, 2012).
Question2
The head of Google EMEA business was the key decision maker in the whole case. Matt Brittin, the head in Europe, knew that legal obligation in Europe are much harder compared to that of USA. He could not convince comparison shopping services to bid at the time of auction for ad space because he knew that they would not believe Google shopping and Google are separate entity, not only in books but in business world also. At the same time, if he will not organise any process for bidding then he Google would stand a chance to prove that they have fair process for buying the ad space on their search engine. One can easily understand the dilemma which head of google EMAR business was facing at that time. He has to run business operations on a parent company but without entering in a trouble where he has to prove that both business are separate entity and they do not help each other in order to register profit by giving illegal advantages.
Question3
Google shopping and other ''comparison shopping services'' are in same business and both are running their business on same search engine, i.e. Google. If this company will give add space to ''Google shopping'' by doing auction then people will not believe it because they would be consider it as a fair bidding process (Clemons and Madhani, 2011). If they will not organise auction then it will definitely be considered as illegal advantages to ''Google shopping''. In both situation, Google has face the blame of reducing competition and using their dominance for own benefit.
UPTO56%
Avail The Benefit Today!
To View this & another 50000+ free
Update your Number