Predictably, Google wants none of this. It says its search service is far less dominant than it appears: consumers look up products on many other sites, including Amazon and eBay (the commission did not count these as search engines). Google also notes that the changes made in 2008 benefited consumers. “People usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want,” Kent Walker, the firm’s general counsel, wrote in a blog post. Here, Google appears to have a point. Why would consumers want to click on a link which leads them to another site if they can see products and prices neatly lined up above Google’s search results?
可以预料的是,谷歌并不想这样。 它表示其搜索服务远远不如它所显示的那样占主导性:消费者在许多其他网站上搜索产品,包括亚马逊和易趣网(欧盟委员会并不把它们视为搜索引擎)。 谷歌还指出,2008年的创新使消费者受益了。 该公司的总顾问肯特·沃克(Kent Walker)在一篇博文中写道:“人们通常喜欢将他们直接带到他们想要的产品的链接。 在这里,谷歌似乎有自己的优点。如果消费者可以在谷歌的搜索结果看到整齐排列的产品和价格,为什么他们还想要点击引导他们进入另一个网站链接?
The European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court, will have to weigh the merits of its argument. Google will appeal, and there are weaknesses in the commission’s case, such as the difficulty of proving real consumer harm from the treatment of other price-comparison sites. Yet the commission deserves credit for tackling a question, which is increasingly important but which American trustbusting agencies have avoided: what is the responsibility of dominant online firms, including Amazon and Facebook, when direct competitors, large and small, offer products and services on their platforms?
欧盟最高法院欧洲法院必须权衡其论据的有利点。 谷歌会上诉,而欧盟委员会的这个案子也有缺点,例如难以提供消费者从其他价格比较网站的处理方面的受到真正损害。 然而,该委员会值得信任的是解决问题,这个问题越来越重要,但是美国的信托机构已经避免了这一点:即当大大小小的直接竞争对手,包括亚马逊和脸书等主要网络公司在他们的平台上提供产品和服务时,他们的责任是什么?