Google’s ‘Search Bias’ in India: What the Debate Is and How the CCI Got It Wrong

M. Singh
{"title":"Google’s ‘Search Bias’ in India: What the Debate Is and How the CCI Got It Wrong","authors":"M. Singh","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3289118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Google has faced charges of abuse of dominant position in many jurisdictions across the world including India. One of the primary grounds for this charge has been favouring its own vertical or sponsored content by placing it more prominently in the search results page also known as “search bias.” The Competition Commission of India’s decision on “search bias” which came a few months after the European Commission’s Comparison Shopping decision has been a subject of much controversy not least because it took a stance quite different from that taken by the EC. This article analyses the CCI’s decision and critiques it in two ways. First, the internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies in the decision are pointed out. Three search features of Google were under the lens and this article concludes that seemingly different standards have been applied for assessing each of these three features. Second, the article refers to the academic literature available on the topic to categorise the issues in the case into three primary debates and uses this three-pronged framework to examine the CCI’s decision. Applying the framework to the case it is concluded that the CCI at best did a partial analysis of the issues which formed the crux of the case.","PeriodicalId":10506,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law School","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3289118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Google has faced charges of abuse of dominant position in many jurisdictions across the world including India. One of the primary grounds for this charge has been favouring its own vertical or sponsored content by placing it more prominently in the search results page also known as “search bias.” The Competition Commission of India’s decision on “search bias” which came a few months after the European Commission’s Comparison Shopping decision has been a subject of much controversy not least because it took a stance quite different from that taken by the EC. This article analyses the CCI’s decision and critiques it in two ways. First, the internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies in the decision are pointed out. Three search features of Google were under the lens and this article concludes that seemingly different standards have been applied for assessing each of these three features. Second, the article refers to the academic literature available on the topic to categorise the issues in the case into three primary debates and uses this three-pronged framework to examine the CCI’s decision. Applying the framework to the case it is concluded that the CCI at best did a partial analysis of the issues which formed the crux of the case.
谷歌在印度的“搜索偏见”:争论是什么以及CCI是如何出错的
谷歌在包括印度在内的全球许多司法管辖区面临滥用主导地位的指控。这项指控的一个主要理由是,谷歌将自己的垂直或赞助内容放在搜索结果页面的显著位置,这也被称为“搜索偏见”。印度竞争委员会对“搜索偏见”的决定是在欧盟委员会对比价购物的决定几个月后做出的,这一决定引起了很多争议,尤其是因为它采取了与欧盟委员会截然不同的立场。本文分析了CCI的决定,并从两个方面对其进行了批评。首先,指出了该决策的内在矛盾和逻辑谬误。谷歌的三个搜索功能在镜头下,这篇文章的结论是,似乎不同的标准被应用于评估这三个功能。其次,本文参考了关于该主题的学术文献,将案例中的问题分为三个主要辩论,并使用这个三管齐下的框架来检查CCI的决定。将这一框架应用到案例中,得出的结论是,CCI最多只对构成案件关键的问题进行了部分分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信