Google’s Criticism of Technology Antitrust – Are They Valid?

Google claims that the law proposed by the US Congress could endanger the safety of users and damage products such as Search and Maps.

Known as American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA)Bill S.2992 contains bilateral legislation proposed by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

The purpose of AICOA is to create a level playing field for companies to compete online. It targets alleged anti-competitive practices, such as a platform that favors its own products and services over competitors.

Google claims that the account will do more harm than good. Royal Hansen, Google’s vice president of privacy, security and safety engineering, wrote blog post earlier this week with a list of the company’s concerns about S.2992.

Do Google’s claims hold water? Let’s take a look at Google’s arguments and compare them to what is outlined in the bill.

How does antitrust harm Google and others?

Google has four main arguments against it account S.2992:

• By banning basic product integration, it harms security.
• Opens Google products to take advantage of foreign companies.
• This limits Google’s efforts to combat misinformation.
• It does not address current security concerns.

Does the law prohibit product integration?

Google does not point out any special words in the bill that would talk about banning product integration, so I can only guess what the company is wondering.

I believe Google is referring section 3.1 a law stating that platforms will be illegal:

“Give priority to the products, services or activities of the covered platform operator over the products of another business user on the covered platform in a way that would significantly harm the competition.”

Google may also refer to section 3.2stating that the platforms will be illegal:

“Limit the ability of another business user’s products, services or business areas to compete on the covered platform with respect to the covered platform operator’s products, services or business lines in a manner that would significantly harm the competition.”

This could affect the integration of Google products, such as how Search, Maps, and Business Profiles are integrated, as companies with similar products cannot compete at the same level.

Section 3.8 may also provoke anger at Google, making it illegal:

“Materially restrict or impede covered platform users from removing preinstalled software applications or changing default settings that direct or direct covered platform users to products or services offered by the covered platform operator, unless necessary . “

This can affect how Google integrates its products, as it should allow users to differentiate Google applications from each other.

“I usually agree with Google’s position,” commented Ericka Johnson, a senior fellow at Squire Patton Boggs LLP, who specializes in cyber security, via email. “This legislation seems to have all the best intentions – to encourage more competition between major online platforms. [But] whereas the law prohibits basic product integration, [Google] he may not be able to insure his products by default. “

Finally, Johnson adds: “This could have unintended consequences, especially for those smaller businesses that may not have the means to understand the nuances of defending against cybersecurity attacks other than relying on default settings. ”

However, the law adds that the platforms may restrict users from removing software “for security or performance of the covered platform.”

Does the bill allow foreign companies to take advantage of Google’s products?

Google says the law will require companies to open their platforms to outside customers, which could lead to the exploitation of foreign companies looking to access data from U.S. companies and citizens.

Google says section 3.4 a bill that says it will be illegal to:

“Significantly limit, hinder or unduly delay a business user’s ability to access or interact with the same platform, operating system or hardware or software features available for the covered operator’s products, services or activities covered by the platform operator. competing or competing with products or services offered by business users on a covered platform. “

Whether this would have the effect described by Google is a matter of interpretation.

“While efforts to promote competition are generally good for the U.S. economy and society, I think we need to be wary of … unintended consequences,” Johnson notes. “Cybersecurity is a matter of national security and, especially given the existing cybersecurity threats from Russia, among other countries, I think Congress needs to be careful not to weaken US-based online platforms.”

Does the law limit Google’s ability to combat misinformation?

Google argues that S. 2992 will limit its ability to take action against malicious content, as the law states that there must be “non-discriminatory treatment”.

In its argument, Google points to section 3.9 a bill that says it will be illegal to:

“… In relation to any covered platform user interface, including search or sorting functions offered by the covered platform, treat the covered platform operator’s products, services or business areas more favorably than those of another business user than in accordance with the standards require neutral, fair and non-discriminatory treatment of all business users. “

If Google lost the ability to “discriminate” against competitors by lowering them, it would be easier for entities to spread misinformation.

Does the bill not address current security concerns?

Here’s what Google says about the account because it addresses “valid” security concerns:

… The revised bill says that we do not have to cooperate or provide access to data to entities that pose ‘clear’ and ‘significant’ security risks. But this assumes that we know in real time what risks are important, and could prevent us from blocking moderate or emerging security risks that clearly do not reach the “significant” threat limit.

In other words, Google claims that the law would prevent it from taking action on small threats before they become major security concerns.

“The participants in the threat are very sophisticated,” Johnson adds, “and will look for any opportunity to take advantage of the weakness in the organization’s IT infrastructure.”

Section 2.2 The bill says technology platforms do not need to accept entities that pose a “clear risk to national security”. However, I did not find anything that would explicitly limit Google’s ability to reduce security risks other than national concerns.

The bill also lists affirmative defenses for violating any illegal conduct required by law. One of these defenses involves protecting the security and privacy of users.

Technically, this means that Google can block any entity it deems to be a security threat if it can provide sufficient evidence of a risk to the security of users.

Are Google claims valid?

Fellow technology giants – who would be subject to legislation if AICOA is passed into law – echo Google’s concerns.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), for example, has launched a campaign called Don’t break what works to raise awareness of the potential impact of S.2992.

Proponents of the law say critics are missing the mark and that the AICOA is designed to make it easier for small businesses to compete with large monopolies.

Senator Klobuchar explained on the Morning Joe Show on Tuesday what she wants to achieve with the presentation of the law:

“… What the law says is that if you sell things on your own platforms, then you can’t give them an edge over other competing business products. Because they do. They start buying thing after thing and basically overtaking it because they own the pipeline through which people buy other competitors. This is not fair capitalism. That’s when antitrust policy comes into play. “

Senator Klobuchar’s office did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

What happens if AICOA is adopted?

If Congress passes AICOA into law, it could affect many of the major technology platforms people use every day.

Users may see a reduced experience, for example, when it comes to Google search.

For example, Google would potentially not be able to make its products more visible than others, which means that it would not be able to display a local package of Google business profiles when searching for restaurants.

The search could look more like it used to be when there were only ten blue links with a few ads at the top.

---

Selected image: rafapress / Shutterstock