Revisiting the Safe Harbour – Promoting Trade and Trust in the Digital Economy

Revisiting the Safe Harbour – Promoting Trade and Trust in the Digital Economy November 25, 2015 by admin Yesterday, ICOMP held a seminar titled, Revisiting the Safe Harbour – Promoting Trade and Trust in the Digital Economy. Comprising a panel of experts including Auke Haagsma, ICOMP Director; Jonathan Bamford, Head of Strategic Liaison, UK Information … read more

Revisiting the Safe Harbour – Promoting Trade and Trust in the Digital Economy

The Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), will be hosting a seminar entitled, Revisiting the Safe Harbour – Promoting Trade and Trust in the Digital Economy. The session will take place on Tuesday 24th November, 0830 – 1030, at the offices of Burson-Marsteller, in central London. Responses to the ECJ’s recent Safe Harbour decision … read more

A Golden Opportunity to Restore User Trust

The EU Court of Justice’s recent decision in Schrems, invalidating the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour—a primary mechanism used to lawfully transfer data across the Atlantic—has left both European and American companies reeling. Without the Safe Harbour, many everyday but essential business tasks, like reaching out to potential customers or working with business partners, have become mired … read more

An Overview of the Commission’s Case Against Google

In May 2012, the European Commission announced that it had identified four areas “where Google business practices may be considered as abuses of dominance”:   Search manipulation: The Commission was concerned that Google eliminates competition from specialised search engines—those focusing on specific areas such as travel, local reviews, mapping, and shopping—by artificially demoting them in … read more

Responding to Googlespeak: Part 5

Myth 5: Our practices haven’t caused any harm. Rather than challenge the Commission’s SO head on and argue that it should be free to exploit its massive dominance in search to divert users away from relevant competing sites and toward its own, less-relevant sites, Google’s main argument appears to be a variant of the “no … read more

Responding to Googlespeak: Part 4

Myth 4: Competitors don’t want us to include our own services in search results. In characterizing the Commission’s SO, Google claims it is based on allegations by competitors that “Google’s practice of including our own specialized results…in search have significantly harmed their businesses” (emphasis added).   Fact 4: Competitors just want Google to let them … read more

Responding to Googlespeak: Part 2

Myth 2: The popularity of Amazon and eBay shows that competition is thriving.   Google’s blog post includes graphs on “Shopping Sites” in Germany, France, and the UK, which purport to show that Amazon and eBay receive more online traffic than Google Shopping. According to Google, this proves that “(a) there’s a ton of competition … read more

Responding to Googlespeak: Confronting Google’s Arguments

On April 15, the European Commission announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections (SO) to Google for illegally abusing its dominance in search, and that it was opening a separate investigation into abuses involving Android, Google’s mobile operating system. In response, Google issued two blog posts “strongly disagree[ing] with” the Commission and setting … read more

Questions Raised by Google’s Response to the Statement of Objections

By the time Commissioner Vestager had made her announcement this week that Google were to be issued a Statement of Objections, the company had released their response, strangely titled “A Search for Harm”, on their blog setting out their initial arguments against the Commission’s finding. They had already laid the groundwork to this response with … read more