Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 20:00:19 GMT -8
The General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) recommended the shelving of an investigation against Google for anti-competitive practices in the internet price comparison market. Investigators considered the data they found inconclusive to make a formal accusation.
According to the opinion of Cade's General Superintendence, although Google was condemned for the practice in Europe, in Brazil it was demonstrated that changes to the algorithms were made to benefit consumers.
The procedure was opened after a B2B Lead complaint from the company E-Commerce Media Group, owner of the price comparison sites Buscapé and Bondfaro. According to the company, the search site favors Google Shopping, a price comparison service launched in 2011, violating the obligation of neutrality of the search algorithm to the detriment of competitors.
E-Commerce also accuses Google of privileging its own service since 2013, when it decided that Google Shopping would remain in a fixed and privileged position in search results. But these ads, says the complaint, would not be available to competitors like Buscapé.
Analysis
For Cade, data on the drop in traffic for price comparators is not conclusive. However, data relating to price comparator spending on sponsored ads does not indicate that there was an increase as a result of the practices adopted by Google. Therefore, the General Superintendence understood that it was not possible to conclude that the conduct analyzed had a negative impact on the competitive environment.
Regarding Google's refusal to sell advertisements with images for price comparators, the Superintendency understood that this was a product design developed by Google to favor advertisements that allow the end consumer to reach the purchasing website with just one click, without intermediaries.
Furthermore, studies and tests presented by Google demonstrated that users, when faced with the innovations promoted by Google on its results page, would be more satisfied, on average, than in the format without ads in privileged locations.
According to the Superintendency's opinion, the investigation in Brazil did not identify clear signs of harm to competitors, unlike what was found in Europe, where Google was condemned for the same practice.
There, Google would have used algorithms to demote rival sites that deliberately placed competing price comparison sites in poor positions in search results, which was not verified in Brazil.
According to the Superintendence, both in Brazil and in the investigation conducted in the United States, there is evidence of improvement in the user experience, which indicates that the innovations introduced by Google cannot be considered anti-competitive.
In this sense, the General Superintendence understood that in markets with intense innovation, such as the case investigated, the intervention of the antitrust authority must be carried out with great caution, under penalty of inhibiting the innovative effort, which is characteristic of these markets. For these reasons, it was recommended that the case be archived.
