IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v10y2014i3p517-541..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is There A Market For Organic Search Engine Results And Can Their Manipulation Give Rise To Antitrust Liability?

Author

Listed:
  • James D. Ratliff
  • Daniel L. Rubinfeld

Abstract

Google has been accused of manipulating its organic search results to favor its own services. We explore possible choices of relevant antitrust markets that might make these various antitrust allegations meaningful. We argue that viewing Internet search in isolation ignores the two-sided nature of the search-advertising platform and the feedback effects that link the provision of organic search results to consumers on the one hand, and the sale to businesses of advertising on the other. We conclude that the relevant market in which Google competes with respect to Internet search is at least as broad as a two-sided search-advertising market. We also ask whether Google has a duty to provide organic search results that are neutral with respect to whether the displayed listing is for a Google rather than a non-Google business. We articulate and apply a standard that asks whether various practices related to Google's organic search results would harm competition that would have otherwise occurred.

Suggested Citation

  • James D. Ratliff & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2014. "Is There A Market For Organic Search Engine Results And Can Their Manipulation Give Rise To Antitrust Liability?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 517-541.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:10:y:2014:i:3:p:517-541.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhu013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tursunbayeva, Aizhan & Di Lauro, Stefano & Pagliari, Claudia, 2018. "People analytics—A scoping review of conceptual boundaries and value propositions," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 224-247.
    2. Avdasheva, Svetlana & Golovanova, Svetlana & Katsoulacos, Yannis, 2019. "The role of judicial review in developing evidentiary standards: The example of market analysis in Russian competition law enforcement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 101-114.
    3. Joshua D. Wright & John M. Yun, 2019. "Burdens and Balancing in Multisided Markets: The First Principles Approach of Ohio v. American Express," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(4), pages 717-740, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • L44 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Antitrust Policy and Public Enterprise, Nonprofit Institutions, and Professional Organizations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:10:y:2014:i:3:p:517-541.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.