Ceci est une version HTML d'une pièce jointe de la demande d'accès à l'information 'Meetings with FairSearch'.



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: [adresse e-mail] [mailto:[adresse e-mail]]  
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 
 
 
[adresse e-mail] 
 
 
From: 
@ec.europa.eu [mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]  
Sent: 28 July 2014 16:50 
To: [adresse e-mail] 
Subject: RE: Meeting Request from FairSearch Europe 

 
Thank you very much for the information! 
 
Kind regards, 
 
 
From: [adresse e-mail] [mailto:[adresse e-mail]]  
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: [adresse e-mail] 
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: [adresse e-mail] 
[mailto:[adresse e-mail]
]  
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 
 
 
[adresse e-mail] 
 


 
 
From: 
@ec.europa.eu 
[mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]  
Sent: 25 July 2014 18:24 
To: [adresse e-mail] 
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: [adresse e-mail] 
[mailto:[adresse e-mail]
]  
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 
 
[adresse e-mail] 
 
 
 
From: 
@ec.europa.eu 
[mailto:
@ec.europa.eu]  
Sent: 27 March 2014 11:26 
To: [adresse e-mail] 
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: [adresse e-mail] 
[mailto:[adresse e-mail]]  
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 
 
 
 
[adresse e-mail] 
 
 
  
From: [adresse e-mail] 
[mailto:[adresse e-mail]]  
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, NokiaTwenga; Brazil’s Buscapé and US firms Expedia, 
TripAdvisor, Oracle, Microsoft, 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