Texas Opens Inquiry Into Google Search Rankings 178
Posted
by
timothy
from the when-governments-attack dept.
from the when-governments-attack dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The AP reports that Texas' attorney general, Greg Abbott, has opened an anti-trust investigation against Google spurred by complaints that the company has abused its power as the Internet's dominant search engine. The review appears to be focused on whether Google is manipulating its search results to stifle competition. European regulators already have been investigating complaints alleging that Google has been favoring its own services in its results instead of rival websites and several lawsuits have also been filed in the US that have alleged Google's search formula is biased. However Google believes Abbott is the first state attorney general to open an antitrust review into the issue."
More on this... (Score:5, Informative)
As originally posted on Search Engine Land [searchengineland.com], These allegations are merely exploratory and it is difficult to determine exactly where the GA's office is headed in this investigation, or how Texas could claim jurisdiction. All the lawsuits in question are being raised by non-Texas corporations and against a California-based company.
Yesterday, Google responded to the investigation [blogspot.com], which has not been made public yet by the General Attorney's office. In it's response, Google states that they "listen carefully to people's concerns" and " we strongly believe our business practices reflect our commitment to build great products for the benefit of users everywhere". To some extent this sounds like the usual play from Google, invoking it's "do no evil" mantra.
Does Google manipulate results to thwart competitors and advance its own businesses? Some competitors to Google are concerned that the company lowers search results listings for certain firms and/or charging higher fees ads they place vs those of Google's partners.
Google has never revealed its search or ranking methodology for sites in detail, though it has published some papers on optimization and best practices.
Google's reply on a Friday night after business hours on the biggest 3-day summer weekend of the year is sure to draw little attention.
Re:Uh...it's free... (Score:3, Informative)
Antitrust violations tend to be abuse of a monopoly position to prevent competitors from entering or gaining traction in a market.
Considering that Google isn't really even a monopoly, this doesn't have merit as an actual case.
Re:unexpected? (Score:3, Informative)
Never heard about the complaining sites. (Score:5, Informative)
Harrison said that Abbott has asked Google for information about several companies, including: Foundem, an online shopping comparison site in Britain; SourceTool, which runs an e-commerce site catering to businesses; and MyTriggers, another shopping comparison site
Never heard of any of these sites. I Google shopping comparison, and I get the well known comparison sites I expect to see at the top. I do not get MyTriggers.
.co.uk domain suffix - Google doesn't like this as much. Also, this time there really aren't any merchant rankings. They do have a Google bash on their home page with a link to SearchNeutrality.org - a site they also own.
So I go to the MyTriggers site itself to check it out. At first, I didn't think they even had merchant site reviews. Then I realized they do, but may of the sites have not been reviewed yet. Only 2 reviews for Target? 12 for Amazon?
Whois search reveals the site was registered in 2005. Not bad, but if they have been around for 5 years I should have heard about them by now. Also, their domain registration reveals that they renew their domain every year. Google gives better ranking to sites that pay for many years at once, since that shows they owners have faith if their company. Basic SEO fail.
Quick investigation reveals that the company also owns ShopBig - one of those penny auction sites. I hate these sites and the way they operate. The MyTriggers site is hardcoded to show a big ad link to ShopBig on every page. Aren't they in fact doing the same thing they accuse Google of. They don't give other penny auction sites a chance to advertise there or appear on their search result rankings.
Let's pick on another site. TFA says that SourceTool is a e-commerce site catering to business, but the title on the home page says "SourceTool - A B2B Search Engine". If I Google B2B Search Engine, they are number 2 in the results. If I Google e-commerce for business they do not appear. The word commerce doesn't appear on their home page. So what are they? SEO Fail.
In the end, the site is a search engine for companies that sell to businesses. Since they have a medical category, and the company I work for is #1 in several categories for medical devices, I decide to see if they are listed. After waiting a full minute for the medical page to load, they are not. They don't even have the proper category for my company. Just to be sure I click on company profiles A-Z to see if I can find my company. It shows all companies starting with the #1. and a button for next page. No simple button to show companies that start with letter X. Do I have to click Next 50 times? They have a search box on this screen, but if I use it I get a 404 error.
I wasn't going to review Foundem at first since they are based in the UK and I don't live there. Google should be smart enough to lower their site on my search simply because that site applies less to me. Still I look anyway. They use the less popular
I think the real complaint from these companies is the fact that shopping.Google.com results are now always shown on the search results page if Google thinks you are searching for a product - Something Bing did first. This pretty much destroys the business model for many companies. If Google thinks I am trying to purchase something, should they send me to a site that can't sell me the product? Should they send me to another site where I have to do 4 more clicks to get to a list of merchants and prices for the product I am looking for. If Google guesses wrong, should they show me a list of shopping sites on the first page when I really want a product review? I think the way Google handles shopping results is the best way for me, and they are in the business of satisfying my needs. This is still search.
Re:Uh...it's free... (Score:4, Informative)
As an easy to explain example, the deal that saw Google acquire Double click almost certainly ran afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act in that it substantially reduced the market competition in the on line advertising space. That's just an example, but it pretty clearly demonstrates that being a monopoly isn't necessary for running afoul of antitrust regulations.
Google "search" (Score:3, Informative)
I just Googled, "search" and Google was at number seven. Bing was at the top. Using "search engine" and Google isn't even on the first three pages (I got bored after that). So clearly, Google isn't exercising it's monopoly powers very well.
P.S. I would Google for "Google" but I didn't want to break the Internets.
"no lock-in"? See 15 U.S.C.A. 1 (Score:1, Informative)
You can't use an Android phone without a GMail account http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/android/thread?tid=22aadb7bd265418a&hl=en [google.com].
The term for that is "tying arrangement" (http://www.answers.com/topic/tying-arrangement [answers.com]) and ... tying arrangements are regulated by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton (anti-trust) Act (15 U.S.C.A. 14)).
Re:When you can't compete, sue... (Score:2, Informative)
You are even promoting it today.
Re:"no lock-in"? See 15 U.S.C.A. 1 (Score:1, Informative)
You must've missed http://www.careace.net/2010/05/25/samsung-will-support-yahoo-service-on-android-and-bada/ [careace.net]
android phones without having a google account. *gasp* I know. its fucking shocking. Android, which is open source, can be rebuilt by anyone to use anybody's services. It isn't even a tying arrangement because the actual delivered OS doesn't come from Google. It comes from the handset makers and carriers and third parties. In order to qualify, Google would have to require the handset makers and carriers deliver Android with Google accounts, which they don't. They publish code and say "here you are. use it as you will."