Mohd. Fahad Ansari-
The author is a student at the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) Ranchi
Competition authorities across the globe have encountered a variegated track record in their dealings with the colossal tech entity, Google. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), too, finds itself entangled in this intricate saga. The most recent episode in the ongoing apprehensions surrounding Google unfolded in the case of Digital News Publishers Association v. Alphabet Inc. (Alphabet). Within the Alphabet lawsuit, an assortment of allegations emerged, notably asserting that Google, leveraging its preeminent position in relevant markets, has imposed unjust conditions on digital news publishers concerning the display of their links in Google's search results. Consequently, this conduct allegedly deprives news publishers of the equitable value of their content. The accusation further contends that Google's exploitation of its dominance in one market to penetrate another constitutes a violation of Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Uncovering the Impact of Alleged Zero-Click Searches
The allegation pertaining to the breach of section 4(2)(e) also encompasses an examination of zero-click searches. When conducting a search on Google, an abundance of results materializes within mere seconds, wherein Google presently offers a concise excerpt of the pertinent outcomes. Commonly referred to as zero-click searches, these queries resolve the search inquiry directly on the results page, obviating the need to visit an external website. Consequently, the website in question, which could have provided the informative "snippet," suffers a loss in advertising revenue as users no longer navigate to its platform, thereby conferring a benefit upon Google.
Zero-click searches emerged as a prominent phenomenon attributed to empirical evidence, which shed light on their astronomical ascent in the realm of search results. Statistical data from 2019 unveiled a striking revelation: a substantial majority, precisely 50.33%, of all Google searches belonged to the category of zero-click searches. Subsequently, in 2020, this figure escalated even further, reaching a staggering two-thirds of all Google searches. Such a marked proclivity towards zero-click searches signifies an evolving paradigm in online search patterns, thus demanding a comprehensive exploration of the advantages and drawbacks inherent in this phenomenon.
Zero-Click Searches- User Convenience, Website Challenges
An unmistakable detriment becomes apparent for the originating websites that serve as sources for these informative snippets. Apart from the foregone advertising revenue that would have been generated through user visits to the website, ancillary actions such as subscribing to newsletters or exploring additional links within the website are precluded entirely due to the user's non-engagement with the website itself.
Google refuted these findings and asserted that website traffic witnessed an upsurge despite the allegations concerning zero-click searches. Google maintained that numerous instances, though appearing as zero-click searches, did not fall into that category. For example, specific snippets served the purpose of assisting users in refining their queries and guiding them toward the website that best caters to their requirements. Additionally, these snippets facilitated access to vital information like business hours or location, ultimately leading users to the physical establishment itself.
Zero-click searches provide invaluable expediency in obtaining swift answers. However, when users require more comprehensive information beyond a mere concise response, it is highly probable that they will explore the respective website for a more thorough examination. Moreover, it can be posited that zero-click searches, from the perspective of websites, may enhance competition by virtue of factors such as content quality. This phenomenon is intertwined with the coveted "Position Zero" attribute prominently showcased on the search results page, denoting the preeminent snippet displayed. Websites have the potential to vie for this influential position, ultimately enabling them to capture a larger share of web traffic within the broader framework of digital prominence.
Examination through the Lens of Competition Law
Zero-click searches present an apparent scenario wherein consumer advantages are evident, albeit accompanied by corresponding drawbacks for the implicated websites. Nonetheless, when viewed through the lens of competition law, a broader spectrum of matters necessitates scrutiny, leading to the ultimate assessment of whether Google's alleged abuse of dominance, as posited in the Alphabet case, indeed transpires.
A Classic Case of Abuse of Competition
While enhancing the search engine's efficiency, the advent of zero-click searches, or similar innovations, undoubtedly exerts a direct influence on the competitive landscape. Google's unmistakable dominance within the online search services domain becomes manifest, and zero-click searches, among other mechanisms, empower Google to ensure user retention on its platform, thereby obviating the need to engage with alternative players or utilize their offerings. This phenomenon should be considered within the broader operational framework meticulously established by Google. In the 21st century, users encounter Google or its affiliated services pervasively across numerous facets of their digital existence, encompassing realms such as news, imagery, email communications, video conferencing, e-commerce, and an expansive assortment of convenient, complimentary services. By interconnecting its diverse services, Google effectively constructs a captivating ecosystem that effectively constrains other competitors, creating an intriguing entrapment for the user.
In the case of Alphabet, a conspicuous example emerged showcasing how Google leveraged its dominant status as a preeminent search engine to venture into the realm of online news through the introduction of platforms such as Google News and Google News Showcase, among others. As per the allegations, such conduct would amount to a transgression of section 4(2)(e) of the Act, wherein Google exploits its prevailing position in one market to penetrate or safeguard another market. Analogous to the findings reached in the Google Shopping case within the European Union, there exists a prospect here to establish the abuse of dominance, as Google promotes its proprietary services while distorting competition within the online advertising market.
Alphabet case serves as a pertinent platform for examining the ramifications on digital advertising and the ensuing competition dynamics. With companies allocating substantial resources to advertising endeavors, the realm of digital advertising has swiftly emerged as a formidable force. Given that Google garners nearly 80% of its revenue from advertising, there exists a palpable incentive for the company to curtail opportunities for other websites to vie with it in the domain of digital advertising. Presently, numerous news publishers maintain an online presence, while the readership of print publications continues to dwindle persistently. Against this backdrop, regulating the activities of Google assumes paramount significance, as a failure to act would entail the eventual expulsion of these news websites from the market, undermining their role both as news disseminators and advertising platforms. Advertising substantiates the foundation of the news publishing industry, and permitting the alleged practices outlined in the Alphabet case to persist would effectively render Google the solitary player within the market—an undeniable and exceptionally potent threat.
Democracy and Consumer Implications
In the ultimate analysis, it is within the purview of Google, or rather Google's algorithms, to ascertain the selection of search results to be accentuated in the form of snippets or those deserving placement on the coveted first page of results. Given the magnitude of market power wielded by Google, there exists a distinct possibility for the company to exert a measure of control over the information that reaches the consumer. This consideration carries profound implications, as mounting awareness has emerged regarding the propensity of large corporations to intercede and sway democratic processes, including elections while exerting influence over public opinion. Such concerns align with the principles advocated by the New Brandeis Movement, which caution against the perils associated with the concentration of power in the hands of corporations, potentially undermining the very essence of democracy.
Furthermore, it can be contended that the ostensible advantages afforded to consumers may be eclipsed by the lasting detriments inflicted upon them. Google's proclivity for self-favoritism, particularly when manifested within the realm of news dissemination, has the potential to undermine the incentives for news websites to deliver content of exceptional quality that encapsulates the intricate nuances of pertinent issues. News and media play an indispensable role in shaping an individual's perception of the world and their active engagement in the realm of governance. Superficially scrutinizing the ramifications of zero-click searches, consumers are merely presented with a fractional glimpse of a broader composition, which, subsequent to undergoing the filters of search engine optimization, furnishes them with an answer that falls short of being optimal.
Conclusion
The Alphabet case, which instigated this discourse within the Indian context, led the CCI to adopt a preliminary perspective that Google had contravened section 4 of the Act, prompting an inquiry into the matter. While the issue of zero-click searches may be fleeting, it is widely acknowledged that the CCI's decision demands meticulous consideration, as it encapsulates a distinct amalgamation of consumer advantage, groundbreaking ingenuity, and the imperative to address competition-related apprehensions. Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that numerous similar cases challenging Google's trailblazing innovations are anticipated, and the prospective ruling in the Alphabet case has the potential to serve as a guiding beacon for the forthcoming competition concerns that are bound to arise.
Comments