Ref. Ares(2018)2554432 - 16/05/2018
Ref. Ares(2018)2751838 - 28/05/2018
From:
(CAB-KROES)
Sent:
lundi 8 septembre 2014 17:25
To:
REYNERS FONTANA Carlota (CAB-KROES);
(CNECT)
Subject:
FW: FairSearch Europe team for 15h meeting on 9 September
FYI, please. The list of participants of the meeting tomorrow with FairSearch Europe at 15:00.
Kind regards,
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 5:20 PM
To:
(CAB-KROES)
Cc:
Subject: FairSearch Europe team for 15h meeting on 9 September
Dear
,
For tomorrow’s meeting with Ms Reyners at15h, the FairSearch team will be
• Shivaun Raff, Co-founder and CEO of Foundem
• Leo Baumann, Nokia
•
, FairSearch
•
,
FairSearch,
•
FairSearch, associate Clifford Chance
•
FairSearch Europe Secretariat,
Please note that as I am trying to switch carriers, my mobile is not working at all times. The
best way of contacting me tomorrow morning is through my B-M email copied here and
above:
See you tomorrow
Kind regards
FairSearch Europe
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
From:
@ec.europa.eu [mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]
Sent: 28 July 2014 16:50
To: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe
Thank you very much for the information!
Kind regards,
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
(CAB-KROES)
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe
Yes, I am sure that Legal Counsel as well as several FairSearch members will attend
as well.
I will send you a list of participants closer to the time.
Kind regards
From:
@ec.europa.eu [mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]
Sent: 28 July 2014 15:36
To: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe
Dear
,
Thank you or your reply. 9th September at 15:00 is fine. May I ask if someone else
will join you for the meeting?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:20 PM
To:
(CAB-KROES)
Cc:
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe
Dear
,
I unfortunately am taking a late vacation this year – leaving the last week of
August. So could I suggest a meeting slightly later in September – on
Tuesday, 9 September at 15:00 for example?
Kind regards
FairSearch Europe
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
From:
@ec.europa.eu
[mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]
Sent: 25 July 2014 18:24
To: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe
Dear
,
On behalf of Ms Carlota Reyners I would like to thank you for your e-mail
requesting a meeting to discuss recent developments of the Google case. Ms
Reyners will be on leave as of next week. I would therefore propose either
28-29 August or first week of September for a meeting. Please let me know
which option suits you better.
Thank you and kind regards,
European Commission
Cabinet of Vice President Neelie Kroes
@ec.europa.eu
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:49 PM
To: REYNERS FONTANA Carlota (CAB-KROES)
Cc:
(CAB-KROES)
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe
Dear Carlota,
Now that the responses to the pre-rejection letters have been
submitted, as suggested, I am writing to request a meeting with
FairSearch Europe to bring you up to date on these developments.
We suggest a meeting in August at your convenience – possibly 7 or
8 August, although a FairSearch team would meet with you next
week on Tuesday or Wednesday if you prefer or later in August or
early September.
Kind regards
FairSearch Europe
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
From:
@ec.europa.eu
[mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]
Sent: 27 March 2014 11:26
To: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc:
@ec.europa.eu
Subject: RE: Meeting Request
Dear
,
Thanks for your call a minute ago. As just discussed I suggest you
take contact again once you have seen the pre-rejection letter from
COMP and the survey you are conducting is finished. I copy my
assistant
who you can also put in copy next time so she
makes sure we follow-up on the request!
Best regards,
Carlota
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:55 PM
To: REYNERS FONTANA Carlota (CAB-KROES)
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Carlota Reyners Fontana, Member of Cabinet
Cabinet of Digital Commissioner Neelie Kroes
Dear Carlota,
This is simply to make sure that you have received a copy of the
letter
sent to all European Commissioners yesterday.
would be happy to meet with you (and/or your
Commissioner) to further discuss the threatened impact of the
proposed settlement with Google.
If you are interested in a meeting, I could suggest the following
times. If they are not convenient, I am happy to find other times.
• Wednesday, 9 April: 9.30-13.30 and 15.30-17.30
• Thursday, 10 April: 9 – 10:30 and 14:00 – 17:30
Hoping to heear from you, but in the interests of time, I will contact
your office later in the week to discuss the possiibilities.
Kind regards
FairSearch Europe
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 24 March 2014 18:03
To: '
@ec.europa.eu'
Subject: Letter from FairSearch Europe
FairSearch Europe Secretariat
E:secretaariat@fairsearcheurope.o
rg
W: www.ffairsearcheurope.org
@FairSeaarch
24 March 2014
Re: Google’s third package of proposed commitmentts
Dear Vice President Kroes,
Google’s anti-competitive practices have already ledd to the elimination of
competition in video search, blog search and mapping, nearly eradicated
product-price-comparison markets in Europe, and are now on their way to
eliminating competition in travel search and financial price comparison.
Only by restoring fair competition to the market can we stop this
monopolisatiion of search. However, tragically, the settlement proposed
by Google – iits third attempt – will not achieve this objective.
After an in-depth review of Google’s third package of proposed
commitments,
FairSearch Europe [1] and its members, a group of European
and US businesses that have come together to promote and defend
competition in both the search and mobile markets, have determined that
Europe is confronted with an unprecedented situation. Not only do the
proposed commitments fail to redress Google’s anti-trust violation,
consisting in the first place of diverting search traffic away from rivals
towards its own vertical (specialised) services, but they additionally require
market operators to
pay to benefit from the offered remedy via the
proposed auction mechanism. The proposed commitments will increase
revenues to the infringer while devastating competition, particularly in the
previously thriving online travel and financial reporting sectors.
In light of the devastating consequences of the commitments, I would
welcome a meeting with you to discuss this deeply troublesome
settlement proposal. Below is an overview of our main concerns, which I
would be happy to discuss with you in further detail.
As Google has become the gatekeeper to the Internet, with a 95% market
share in Europe, it stands accused by some 18 formal complainants of
manipulating its search results to systematically favour its own services
and demote or exclude those of its rivals. Given Google’s overwhelming
dominance of search and search advertising, these practices have a
devastating impact on competition, consumer choice and innovation.
Google's proposal is seriously flawed in numerous ways, for example by
excluding maps. This note however focuses on Google's proposed auction
mechanism introduced as a remedy to Google’s search bias (which the
European Commission recognised as an abuse of its dominant position in a
21 May 2012 Statement by Vice President Almunia.) By requiring
competitors to pay to be visible in the Google search results, this remedy
will wreak devastation on key elements of Europe's on-line economy, as
well providing an unprecedented additional revenue stream (as a
remedy for a
competition law infringement) for Google.
Under the proposed auction mechanism, Google will select the three rivals
to display their services on the search results page, based on both the level
of the various bids and the expected click through rate for the competing
service. These two elements will maximise the revenue that Google makes
by displaying these ads.
The auction winners will be those who generate the biggest revenue for
Google, not the most innovative SMEs, nor those providing the cheapest,
best or most relevant products for consumers. Moreover, new entrants are
specifically excluded from the auction due to an imposed minimum traffic
threshold. Additionally, critical and popular consumer services are wholly
excluded from this remedy, such as other map providers, social service
providers, general purpose search engines, merchants, and payment
services. These are critical services to Internet consumers and there is no
pro-competitive reason for their exclusion. Let me explain in more detail:
[1] FSE members: European
firms Allegro, Foundem, InsideGuides, Nokia, Twenga; Brazil’s Buscapé and US firms Expedia,
TripAdvisor, Oracle, Micros
oft, Hotwire, Level.com, LookSmart, ShopCity, admarketplace.com, thefind and the Travel
Tech Association.
• The draft commitment in essence creates an additional "paid
advertising" space on the page, in addition to the ones already in
existence.
• For existing paid advertising space, only a limited number of links
can be displayed. For these links, there are numerous bidders in
the form of online services, because Google is the critical entry
point for consumers to find these online services. The rivals
already pay to be included in this advertising space.
• The remedy’s introduction of a new paid advertising box, which
displays the three rival links, does not mean a provider of rival
links can stop bidding (or bid less) for the existing advertising
boxes already on Google’s search results page (SERP): all these
rivals and particularly those financially able to do so will want to
bid for every opportunity to be displayed on the Google page for
fear of losing traffic to other rivals.
• This competitive bidding for rival links will all but erase profit
margins for online operators, in particular for SMEs. Meanwhile,
Google can continue to preference its own specialised services at
no cost.
• In travel search, among others, the remedy not only fails to
eliminate the abuse, but turns competitors into additional
revenue sources for Google. ETTSA, representing the European
online travel sector, has assessed (using public sources) that for
the top 20 travel sites alone, Google will generate an additional
incremental revenue of up to euro 240 million/dollars 330 million
per year thanks to the auction mechanism. Extrapolating this
amount to other sectors, such as travel and car insurance or
mortgages, the additional revenue for Google from these
proposed commitments could easily reach euro 1 billion per year.
This settlement, therefore, not only fails to remedy Google’s
abusive behaviour, but would also create new abuses of
dominance, and create a new revenue stream for Google.
We genuinely would prefer for the European Commission to do nothing
than to adopt this current set of Google's proposed commitments in a
settlement. It undoubtedly would be unfortunate for the Commission to
fail, after so much time and effort spent on this investigation, to address
Google's abuses, but it would be far better for the Commission to refrain
from acting than to make matters dramatically worse.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of our arguments. I would
be happy to meet with you at your convenience to provide additional
information.
Yours sincerely,
FairSearch Europe
Document Outline
- From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 5:20 PM To
- From: xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx [mailto:xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx] Sent: 28 July 2014 16:50 To: secretariat@fairsearcheu
- From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:33 PM To: SIM
- From: xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx [mailto:xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx] Sent: 28 July 2014 15:36 To: secretariat@fairsearcheu
- From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:20 PM To: SIM
- From: xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx [mailto:xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx] Sent: 25 July 2014 18:24 To: secretariat@fairsearcheu
- From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:49 PM To: RE
- From: xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx [mailto:xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx] Sent: 27 March 2014 11:26 To: secre
- From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:55 PM To: R
- From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: 24 March 2014 18:03 To: 'neelie.kroes