In the context of U.S. antitrust law, many commentators have recently called for an expansion of the Federal Trade Commission’s adjudicatory decision-making authority pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, increased rulemaking, and carving out exceptions for the agency from increased burdens of production facing private plaintiffs. These claims are often expressly grounded in the assertion that expert agencies generate higher quality decisions than federal district court judges. We call this assertion the expertise hypothesis and attempt to test it. The relevant question is whether the expert inputs available to generalist federal district court judges translate to higher quality outputs and better performance than the Commission produces in its role as an adjudicatory decision-maker. While many appear to assume agencies have courts beat on this margin, to our knowledge, this oft-cited reason to increase the discretion of agencies and the deference afforded them by reviewing courts is void of empirical support. Contrary to the expertise hypothesis, we find evidence suggesting the Commission does not perform as well as generalist judges in its adjudicatory antitrust decision-making role. Furthermore, while the available evidence is more limited, there is no clear evidence the Commission adds significant incremental value to the ALJ decisions it reviews. In light of these findings, we conclude there is little empirical basis for the various proposals to expand agency authority and deference to agency decisions. More generally, our results highlight the need for research on the relationship between institutional design and agency expertise in the antitrust context.

We are in the progress of expanding the analysis and, as always, comments welcome here or at my email address on the sidebar.

Joshua Wright, professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, took the position that there is no significant evidence that Google is guilty of antitrust violations. Even if Google, like other search engines, favors its own content when producing the results of a search request, he argued, dissatisfied customers can easily switch search engines. In other words, the competition is just a click away.

On the other side of the debate was Charles F. Rule, head of the antitrust practice at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. Rule, who has defended Microsoft in antitrust litigation, argued that ample anecdotal evidence exists that implicates Google in a mix of practices that have had the cumulative effect of excluding competitors’ content from appearing in a Google search, as well as monopolizing advertisers. He stressed that his opinions were his own.

…

Wright discussed the evolution of search engines in the last ten years. He conceded that the allegation of search bias, in which a search engine favors its own content at the expense of rivals, is a possible violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. But Wright noted that leading case law indicates that the behavior in question must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers, to be dubbed “exclusionary.”

“We demand evidence of real harm to competition before we break out the antitrust hammer,” he said, “and I don’t think there’s significant evidence of that here. It’s not hard to switch to get what you are looking for.”

Rule dismissed the “just-a-click-away” argument at the beginning of his talk.

“It’s not quite that simple,” he said. “The fact is that because of some of Google’s practices, the company has made it difficult for other search engines like Bing to achieve the same level of performance.”

Rule explained that search engines make their money by selling eyeballs to advertisers, and cited statistics that establish Google’s long-time share of the search-engine advertising market at 90 percent and up. He offered detailed descriptions of specific Google practices that have had the alleged effect of excluding competitive search engines—not just by blocking their content, but also by denying them opportunities to reach advertisers.

“With respect to bias, you can see specific anecdotes where it appears that Google has allegedly blacklisted certain companies intentionally and, in a very focused way, degraded their results so they appear lower on the page,” he said. “But also on the advertising side, there are anecdotes that when Google perceived a potential competitive threat, it automatically dramatically increases the price competitors have to pay, sometimes five to ten thousand percent overnight.”

The Federal Trade Commission has concluded and closed a six-month, nonpublic investigation of Zuffa LLC., the owners of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and will not take further action at this time, an FTC spokesperson confirmed to SI.com on Tuesday.

According to closing letters to parties involved that were made public Tuesday, the FTC Bureau of Competition investigation focused on Zuffa’s March 2011 acquisition of Explosion Entertainment LLC., which owned the rival Strikeforce promotion, and whether the purchase violated Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act  “prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to a create a monopoly,” according to FTC guidelines.

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.’’

“No action has been taken in regards to this part of the investigation,” said the FTC spokesperson, though he said the governmental agency reserves the right to revisit the matter in the public’s interest.

Zuffa purchased Explosion Entertainment, established by Scott Coker and Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment, a sports franchise company, for a reported $40 million. Coker became the general manager for Strikeforce, which plans to hold six events on Showtime this year.

A remarkable set back for the unilateral effects enforcement agenda at the agencies to be sure.

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

We have a long archives of posts here at TOTM on a variety of forms of price gouging legislation in oil and gas.   Most recently, in discussing a White House Task Force aimed to detect price gouging and usurping jurisdiction from the Federal Trade Commission, I wrote:

One need only read the FTC’s 222 page report on gasoline prices post-Katrina and Rita to appreciate the Commission’s expertise in this area.  But perhaps most importantly, and undoubtedly related to the appointment of a working group outside the Commission, is that the Commission understands the relevant economics.  Indeed, as I noted just recently, then Bureau of Economics Director Michael Salinger gets it right when he observed  “as unpleasant as high-priced gasoline is, running out will be even worse.”  Further, it was the Commission Report that found not only scant evidence of what might be described as “gouging” — but did find examples of gas stations that shut down rather than risk a suit under a state price gouging law.  “Price Gouging Helps Consumers” doesn’t make for much of an election slogan, so perhaps this is all to be expected.  But nobody should be fooled into believing that enforcement of existing state price gouging laws, or a new federal task force devoted investigate “price gouging,” are going to make consumers better off.

The criticisms against price gouging laws become even stronger against a “Reasonable Profits Board,” which is even more blatantly political, even more likely to harm consumers, and even more likely to waste social resources than enforcement of state price gouging laws.

I turn to our learned TOTM readership for help.  Please feel free to leave examples in the comments here — or email me.  Cites and links appreciated.

[Cross posted at TechFreedom.org]

Back in September, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing on “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?” Given the harsh questioning from the Subcommittee’s Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Ranking Member Mike Lee (R-UT), no one should have been surprised by the letter they sent yesterday to the Federal Trade Commission asking for a “thorough investigation” of the company. At least this time the danger is somewhat limited: by calling for the FTC to investigate Google, the senators are thus urging the agency to do . . . exactly what it’s already doing.

So one must wonder about the real aim of the letter. Unfortunately, the goal does not appear to be to offer an objective appraisal of the complex issues intended to be addressed at the hearing. That’s disappointing (though hardly surprising) and underscores what we noted at the time of the hearing: There’s something backward about seeing a company hauled before a hostile congressional panel and asked to defend itself, rather than its self-appointed prosecutors being asked to defend their case.

Senators Kohl and Lee insist that they take no position on the legality of Google’s actions, but their lopsided characterization of the issues in the letter—and the fact that the FTC is already doing what they purport to desire as the sole outcome of the letter!—leaves little room for doubt about their aim: to put political pressure on the FTC not merely to investigate, but to reach a particular conclusion and bring a case in court (or simply to ratchet up public pressure from its bully pulpit).

The five page letter concludes with, literally, three sentences presenting Google’s case, one of which reads, in its entirety, “Google strongly denies the arguments of its critics.” The derision is palpable—as if only a craven monopolist would deign to actually deny the iron-clad arguments of Google’s competitors so painstakingly reproduced by Senators Kohl and Lee in the preceding four pages. This is neither rigorous analysis nor objective reporting on the contents of the Senate’s hearing.

While we worry about particularly successful companies being singled out for punishment, we hold no brief for Google in this debate. Instead, in all our writings, we’ve tried to present a consistently skeptical view about a worrisome trend in antitrust enforcement in high tech markets: error-prone and costly intervention in markets that are ill-understood and fast-moving, to the great detriment of consumers and progress generally. Although our institutions have received financial support from Google among a range of other companies, organizations and individuals, our work is focused on this broad mission; we have no obligation or intention to support any company simply because it finds value in supporting our mission.

We’ve defended (and one of us has even worked for) Microsoft in the past, and just yesterday, we lamented the fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FCC have effectively blocked Google’s arch-rival, AT&T, from buying T-Mobile. Rather than defend any particular company, our goal, to paraphrase Hayek, is to “demonstrate to [regulators] how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”—lest they undermine how competition actually works in the name of defending outdated models of how they think it should work. Unfortunately, the letter from Senators Kohl and Lee does nothing to assuage our concern and suggests instead that crass politics, rather than sensible economics, could determine the outcome of cases like this one—if not in a court of law, then in the court of public opinion and extra-legal intimidation.

To begin with, the letter asserts that “Google faces competition from only one general search engine, Bing,” suggesting that only Bing (and it, only ineffectively) could keep Google in check. In essence, the Senators are prejudging an essential question on which any case against Google would turn: market definition. But why would the market not include other tools for information retrieval? Is it not at least worth mentioning that more and more Internet users are finding information and spending time on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, while more and more advertisers are spending their money on these Google competitors? Isn’t it clear that search itself is evolving from “ten blue links” into something more social, multi-faceted and interactive?

In a remarkable leap, the senators then identify the specific alleged abuse that Google’s alleged market power leads to: search bias. That’s remarkable because, other than the breathless claims of disgruntled competitors (given plenty of air time at the September hearing), there is actually no evidence that search bias is, in fact, harmful to consumers—which is what antitrust is concerned with. (Read both sides of this debate in TechFreedom’s free ebook, The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet.)

As our colleague, Josh Wright, has thoroughly demonstrated, this “own-content” bias is actually an infrequent phenomenon and is simply not consistent with an actionable claim of anticompetitive foreclosure. Moreover, among search engines, Google references its own content far less frequently than does Bing (which favors Microsoft content in the first search result when no other search engine does so more than twice as often as Google favors its own content).

Of course, none of this is even hinted at in the Senators’ letter, which seems intended to condemn Google for “preferencing” its own content (under the pretense of withholding judgment). It’s a little like condemning Target for deigning to use its trucks to supply inventory only to its own stores instead of Wal-Mart’s, or, say, condemning a congressman for targeting earmarks for his own state or district. Earmark bias!

In Google’s case, the fundamental basis for these claims, according to the letter, is that “Google’s business model has changed dramatically in recent years.” This is a remarkably candid admission: a company that successfully advances its organization, keeping up with rapidly-shifting technology and mercurial demand, can be condemned—and its business practices adjudged illegal—simply by virtue of the fact that it has, indeed, evolved to offer products it didn’t offer before. Never mind that those products didn’t previously exist and, in some cases, were in fact invented by that company! How would punishing this serve consumers?

To add insult to injury, the story is “corroborated” by the senators’ parroting, without caveats, claims by Google’s rivals that they are harmed by Google’s favoring its own content, and that “they would not attempt to launch their companies today given GoogIe’s current practices.” As a general matter, antitrust law treats such self-interested claims of competitors with the skepticism they deserve. You wouldn’t know it from reading the letter (nor from reading the transcript from the September hearing), but harm to competitors is not the same thing as harm to consumers or competition more generally (which is what antitrust law cares about). The reason is simple: nothing harms competitors more than effective, vigorous competition. Reasoning backward from harm to competitors to infer anticompetitive conduct is the height of irresponsible antitrust enforcement.

The letter also reports, again with no caveats, claims by the CEOs of Yelp! and Nextag that “75 percent of Yelp!’s web traffic consists of consumers who find its website as a result of Google searches, and . . . 65 percent of Nextag’s traffic originates from Google searches,” and that losing this much traffic to Google preferencing its own content would be catastrophic. But the letter fails to mention that most searches for brand names on Google are “navigational” rather than “informational.” As Google competitor Expedia’s CEO recently explained:

The majority of, at least Expedia’s, and I believe Hotel.com’s traffic that comes from search to our site actually come through people searching for Expedia, for example. So in typing in Expedia in Google or so on, typing in Hotels.com in Google. So of the 25% for Expedia, for example, the majority of that traffic is someone who’s already looking for Expedia, and that person is going to find Expedia one way or the other because they are searching for something very specific. (Expedia earnings call, 10/28/10, quoted here).

Indeed, a recently published independent academic study conducted across search engines concluded that 52% of “business queries” (and 72% of organizational queries) were navigational. In other words, most of the Google traffic going to these sites was likely from users who simply typed in “Yelp” or “NextTag” as a convenient way of getting to those sites. Such searches are not diverted (and not even claimed to be diverted) to Google’s own sites, and the first search result for the search term “Expedia” will always be expedia.com. Thus, the majority of these searches that are claimed to make up 75% and 65% of the complaining companies’ traffic is not in any way threatened by Google’s business model, and is completely irrelevant to assessing the effect of Google preferencing its own content.

Furthermore, the letter does not mention Yelp’s recent boast that over 40% (and growing) of its searches are now conducted on its mobile app—insulating it from whatever “power” Google might exercise over traditional searches. While generic search may be the default navigational tool for many desktop users, a great many users seem to prefer searching with apps like Yelp’s on their mobile devices, further underscoring the complexity of the markets at issue and the problem with the kind of facile market definition on display here.

Moreover, who really knows what anyone might have done in 1999 (Nextag) or 2004 (Yelp)? It is facile and meaningless for the companies to imply that Google’s conduct is stifling today the same business models that emerged 7 or 12 years ago, before the ensuing evolution of the market. It would be a shame, in fact, if those same companies were emerging only today, and one shouldn’t be surprised in a rapidly evolving marketplace to find that many once-brilliant ideas turn out to be bested by the vagaries of uncertain, innovative markets. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that Yahoo! ruled the “portal market,” which morphed into the “search” market “controlled,” in turn, by AOL and AltaVista. A static snapshot of the market at any given moment might have inspired the sort of hand-wringing Google inspires today. But the market kept evolving—without government intervention—each time rendering today’s tech titans tomorrow’s has-beens. Nostalgia and a reflexive preference for the status quo are the worst vices of regulating any evolving market, especially high-tech ones. Estimates that Yelp’s upcoming IPO may put the company at a valuation of $1-2 billion should at least make us somewhat skeptical of such claims, anyway.

It is for this reason—the disconnect between the interests of competitors and those of “competition” and the consumers it serves—that it’s particularly disingenuous for the letter to identify Tom Barnett only as “the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust in the administration of President George W. Bush.” This is an ostentatious attempt to appeal to Republicans normally skeptical of government meddling, giving him the last word to claim that “the ultimate result of Google’s practices will be an Internet with fewer choices for consumers and business, higher prices, and less innovation.” (Sen. Lee himself seems to have fallen prey to claims by soi disant conservatives like Rick Rule (also, coincidentally, antitrust attorney to several of Google’s complainants) that antitrust meddling is a core part of capitalism—rather than another form of government regulation prone to capture by incumbents and politicization, precisely as Judge Bork warned in the Antitrust Paradox.)

A fairer letter would have noted the far more salient fact that Barnett is counsel for Expedia Inc., a member of the anti-Google Fairsearch coalition, for which he has served as spokesman. As Josh Wright has ably demonstrated, AAG Barnett and counsel-to-Expedia Barnett have wildly divergent views. While AAG Barnett is rightly celebrated as a thoughtful and restrained antitrust expert (indeed, he taught Berin antitrust law!), counsel-to-Expedia Barnett is a faithful and diligent advocate for his client (as well he should be). It is no disrespect to him to say that his client’s interests are not necessarily the same as those of the consumers Senators Kohl and Lee purport to represent; it is, however, questionable to hold out his views on this matter as representative of consumer interests.

The letter goes on to highlight mobile search as a particularly problematic arena. Why? Because “Google may, as a condition of access to the Android operating system, require phone manufacturers to install Google as the default search engine.” But . . . they haven’t actually done that! The mobile phone market is remarkably competitive and ever-shifting. (One can easily imagine this same letter being written to raise pressing, irreversible concerns about Apple’s iPhone a year or two ago—just before Google’s Android operating system managed to seize the 43% of smart phone operating system share about which this letter is so concerned). Nevertheless, the FTC is urged to “ensure robust competition” in a market marred only by the senators’ purely speculative story about what could conceivably happen some day in the future. Is this really a responsible use of antitrust law?

It certainly isn’t responsible analysis. The Senators’ professed concern for robust competition and protection of the free market is undermined by the letter’s uncritical repetition of attacks on Google made by its competitors. At best, this letter is a missed opportunity to fairly present both sides of this complex case. For this reason, as well as the inconvenient fact (oddly completely absent from the letter) that the FTC is, as we noted, already actually investigating Google, we urge Chairman Leibowitz to investigate nothing more pertaining to this letter than the shape of the arc it makes as it flies through the air into his office wastebasket.

The best, recent example of the need to move quickly in the high-tech area is our recent Intel case.11 Our investigation of Intel started out very slowly and went on for quite some time, but once the Commission issued process and then a complaint, the litigation proceeded with alacrity and ended with a consent less than a year later.

We think the remedies in the consent do much to protect consumers while still allowing Intel to innovate, develop, and sell new products. And I am proud of the relationship that we have been able to maintain with Intel since then. Still, we might have gained more for consumers: much was lost in the years between the start of the investigation and the litigation’s conclusion, and competition for CPUs and other components in personal computers might have been different had we moved faster initially. And moving quickly might have been fairer to Intel too.

As a result of what we have learned from Intel and other cases, the Commission is no longer bogged down in outmoded procedures. Much of what we’ve done at the Commission in recent years has been to make us better at getting to the bottom of investigations and resolving them faster to ensure that businesses get certainty and consumers get protection quickly. That was at the heart of the changes to our Part 3 rules, you get an antitrust trial, and it is implicit in every effort we make to learn more about industries and develop our internal expertise. We have also pushed to make “go/no go” decisions on investigations earlier so that they don’t linger on. All this reduces expenses and, I believe, allows us to act with a lighter hand.

There is a lot about this strikes me as misguided.

First, lets start broadly.  Striking quickly and striking accurately are two different things.  As John Wooden famously says “never mistake activity for achievement.”  Bill Kovacic has emphasized that case counts alone (nor win rates alone) are not very informative regarding agency performance.   Claims of agency success based upon activity levels in extracting settlements and such should be viewed skeptically without evidence that the activity prevented anticompetitive activity and improved consumer welfare.  Doing things faster doesn’t mean doing them any better.

Second, so what about accuracy?  If Intel is the “best example” the Chairman can come up with of antitrust enforcement in high-tech industries, this is not a good sign for the Commission.  I’ve written quite a bit about the Intel complaint and settlement — and so won’t belabor the point here — but suffice it to say that the evidence does not support the claim that the settlement improved consumer outcomes.  In fact, consumers are probably worse off in my view.  Reasonable minds may differ on these points but it is difficult to evaluate the evidence and come away confident that the settlement is as successful as claimed.  And that’s not even counting the peculiar endorsement it gives Lepage’s, which has been overwhelming condemned a standard which threatens pro-consumer conduct.

Third, the Chairman writes: “And I am proud of the relationship that we have been able to maintain with Intel since then.”  Ugh.  Developing longstanding relationships with Intel and other companies is not something for the Commission to be proud of.  Its just not.  In this case, the relationship derives from the product design elements of the Intel settlement.  Remember this language?

Respondent shall not make any engineering or design change to a Relevant Product if that change (1) degrades the performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent and (2) does not provide an actual benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent, including without limitation any improvement in performance, operation, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product; provided, however, that any degradation of the performance of a competing product shall not itself be deemed to be a benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any engineering or design change at issue complies with Section V. of this Order.

I’m sure Intel’s lawyers and engineers have a fine relationship with the FTC.  But lets not mistake that with agency success or something that consumers should celebrate.

Never mistake activity with achievement.

Commissioner Rosch’s dissent makes many of the key points.  Indeed his opening line gets straight to the point: “This case presents the novel situation of a company willing to enter into a consent decree notwithstanding a lack of evidence indicating that a violation has occurred.”

Before getting to specifics, the sharp disagreement between the majority and Commissioner Rosch on both the most basic of facts and economic principles is hard to miss, and gives the entire exchange a rather peculiar feel.  Here’s an example.  The majority describes the case as a standard application of a “Raising Rivals’ Costs” theory, citing Krattenmaker & Salop.  The allegation is that:

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that PoolCorp, which possesses monopoly power in many local distribution markets, threatened its suppliers (i.e., pool product manufacturers) that it would no longer distribute a manufacturer’s products on a nationwide basis if that manufacturer sold its products to a new distributor that was attempting to enter a local market.

The conditions that must be satisfied for an exclusionary theory are well known.  Substantial foreclosure of a critical input is one such necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the possibility of competitive harm.  The majority argues that PoolCorp “foreclosed new entrants from obtaining pool products from manufacturers representing more than 70 percent of sales.”  But standard antitrust analysis tells us that such foreclosure is not enough to support an inference of harm to competition.  First, we must ask whether the threatened refusals to deal actually had any impact on the allegedly impaired rivals or whether they were able to easily realign supply contracts?  Second, and most fundamentally, we must ask whether the conduct at issue had any impact on competition itself, or upon consumers in the form of higher prices, reduced output, lower quality, etc.?

Here is where things get, well, weird.

Did PoolCorp’s actions actually disadvantage any rivals?  The majority concedes that “Some of PoolCorp’s targets were able to survive by purchasing pool products from other distributors rather than directly from the
manufacturers.” Well, that doesn’t sound too bad for the Commission.  If a few firms survived but others were excluded (surely the implication of the sentence), we should continue our analysis.  But was there actually any foreclosure?

Here’s Commissioner Rosch in dissent:

“The investigation revealed that PoolCorp’s demands were not honored by manufacturers.”

What about those potential entrants that were excluded — the ones that were not so lucky as the surviving targets the majority mentions?

“Another problem with this case is that no entrants were actually excluded.”

Yikes.  One gets the impression that the Commissioners are not talking about the same case.  The majority is full of broad generalizations and assertions but no real discussion of facts.  Commissioner Rosch’s dissent offers a bit more on the exclusion claim:

“The only claim to the contrary is in Paragraph 28 of the complaint, which alleges that in Baton Rouge, “the new entrant’s business ultimately failed in 2005” because of the lack of “direct access to the manufacturers’ pool products.” The complaint neglects to mention that this entrant was able to secure supplies from other sources and later sold itself to an established out-of-state distributor. Since then, that distributor, which has had full access to supplies, has been a highly effective rival to PoolCorp. Thus, to the extent PoolCorp’s threats had an effect in Baton Rouge, they may have led to more, not less, competition.”

Not good for the Commission majority.  But injury to rivals isn’t our primary concern.  What about injury to competition?  Here, things get even murkier.  The majority plainly asserts “the harm to consumers that occurred as a result was substantial” and “consumers had fewer choices and were forced to pay higher prices for pool products.”  Sounds relatively straightforward.  Once again, Commissioner Rosch’s dissent exposes disagreement over the most basic of antitrust-relevant facts (emphasis added):

“A third problem with this case is that there was no consumer injury. The investigation did not uncover price increases, service degradation, or other anticompetitive effects in any local markets.”

Rosch goes on:

The basis for the majority statement’s claim that there was “substantial” consumer harm resulting from the alleged conduct of Respondent is a mystery. The complaint contains no factual allegations of any harm to consumers, much less “substantial” harm. Likewise, there are no factual allegations in the complaint corroborating the majority’s claim that consumers “had fewer choices and were forced to pay higher prices for pool products.”

This is a real mess.  Proponents of an expanded application of Section 5 (including Commissioner Rosch) frequently argue that it is capable of being applied with certain limiting principles, including demonstration of consumer injury.  To his credit, Commissioner Rosch is sticking to his guns on consumer injury as a limiting principle here.  But the evidence that the Section 5 is too enticing a tool for the Commission in cases lacking consumer injury is mounting.  The public disagreement over basic facts — is there harm to consumers or not?  was there foreclosure or not?  if so, how much? — also does not inspire confidence that the Commission’s discretion in applying Section 5 in cases where the conduct lies outside the scope of the Sherman Act for technical reasons will be applied in a manner consistent with the consumer welfare goals of antitrust.

Those are general problems with Section 5.  As applied here, the majority opinion is also analytically incoherent.   The Commission majority must deal with the fact that there appears to be no real foreclosure as a result of PoolCorp’s conduct — recall that what the majority described as a few successful surviving firms turns out to be no actual exclusion whatsoever.  Despite the fact that absence of foreclosure or injury to rivals in a case like this is typically the end of the line for the plaintiff, the Commission doesn’t appear to be bothered at all by the lack of evidence of harm to rivals or consumers.  Responding to the fact of no foreclosure, the Commission writes:

“However, we assess consumer harm relative to market conditions that would have existed but for the respondent’s allegedly unlawful conduct. Here, PoolCorp’s strategy significantly increased a new entrant’s costs of obtaining pool products. Conduct by a monopolist that raises rivals’ costs can harm competition by creating an artificial price floor or deterring investments in quality, service and innovation.”

This doesn’t make any sense.  If there is no foreclosure, there is no risk of consumer harm.  Period.  Indeed, while the majority asserts it, there appears to be no actual evidence of consumer harm.  At a minimum, its up for serious debate.  If it were true that PoolCorp’s strategy “increased a few entrant’s cost of obtaining pool products” in practice, and that there were sufficient exclusion to create additional market power, two things would be true: (1) one would observe harm to the rival, and (2) there would be harm to competition in the form of higher prices or reduced output.  Apparently, the Commission could must neither — even when challenged by Commissioner Rosch’s dissent to do so.

One last observation.  Commissioner Rosch’s dissent hints that economic analysis in the case demonstrated that “even if” PoolCorp fully foreclosed its rivals the harm to consumers would be minimal and a waste of Commission resources.   Query: what role are agency economists playing in the Commission’s Section5 agenda?  Unfortunately, it does not appear to be a significant one.

Tomorrow is the deadline for Eric Schmidt to send his replies to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s follow up questions from his appearance at a hearing on Google antitrust issues last month.  At the hearing, not surprisingly, search neutrality was a hot topic, with representatives from the likes of Yelp and Nextag, as well as Expedia’s lawyer, Tom Barnett (that’s Tom Barnett (2011), not Tom Barnett (2006-08)), weighing in on Google’s purported bias.  One serious problem with the search neutrality/search bias discussions to date has been the dearth of empirical evidence concerning so-called search bias and its likely impact upon consumers.  Hoping to remedy this, I posted a study this morning at the ICLE website both critiquing one of the few, existing pieces of empirical work on the topic (by Ben Edelman, Harvard economist) as well as offering up my own, more expansive empirical analysis.  Chris Sherman at Search Engine Land has a great post covering the study.  The title of his article pretty much says it all:  “Bing More Biased Than Google; Google Not Behaving Anti-competitively.”

One clarification is in order.  The  Search Engine Land piece quotes Geoff responding to the author indicating that the research was undertaken independently.  It’s not clear from the way Sherman presents it in the article, but Geoff did acknowledge (as does the disclosure in the paper itself) that Google supports ICLE.  However, as Sherman notes, although the work was indirectly supported by Google, Google had no hand in the conception or execution of the project.  For that I’m the only one to blame, unfortunately.

Following is a summary of the study from the ICLE website.  I plan to blog about the results and their implications in the coming days in a series of posts.

Google has been the subject of persistent claims that its organic search results are improperly “biased” toward its own content.  Among the most influential is an empirical study released earlier this year by Benjamin Edelman and Benjamin Lockwood, claiming that Google favors its own content “significantly more than others.”  The authors conclude in their study that Google’s search results are problematic and deserving of antitrust scrutiny because of competitive harm.

A new report released by the International Center for Law & Economics and authored by Joshua Wright, Professor of Law and Economics at George Mason University, critiques, replicates, and extends the study, finding Edelman & Lockwood’s claim of Google’s unique bias inaccurate and misleading. Although frequently cited for it, the Edelman & Lockwod study fails to support any claim of consumer harm — or call for antitrust action — arising from Google’s practices.

Prof. Wright’s analysis finds own-content bias is actually an infrequent phenomenon, and Google references its own content more favorably than other search engines far less frequently than does Bing:

• In the replication of Edelman & Lockwood, Google refers to its own content in its first page of results when its rivals do not for only 7.9% of the queries, whereas Bing does so nearly twice as often (13.2%).
• Again using Edelman & Lockwood’s own data, neither Bing nor Google demonstrates much bias when considering Microsoft or Google content, respectively, referred to on the first page of search results.
• In our more robust analysis of a large, random sample of search queries we find that Bing generally favors Microsoft content more frequently—and far more prominently—than Google favors its own content.
• Google references own content in its first results position when no other engine does in just 6.7% of queries; Bing does so over twice as often (14.3%).

The results suggest that this so-called bias is an efficient business practice, as economists have long understood, and consistent with competition rather than the foreclosure of competition. One necessary condition of the anticompetitive theories of own-content bias raised by Google’s rivals is that the bias must be sufficient in magnitude to exclude rival search engines from achieving efficient scale. A corollary of this condition is that the bias must actually be directed toward Google´s rivals. That Google displays less own-content bias than its closest rival, and that such bias is nonetheless relatively infrequent, demonstrates that this condition is not met, suggesting that intervention aimed at “debiasing” would likely harm, rather than help, consumers.

Google’s first attempt at brewing has resulted in a beer that taps ingredients from all across the globe. They teamed up with Delaware craft brewery Dogfish Head to make “URKontinent,” a Belgian Dubbel style beer with flavors from five different continents.

No word yet from the Google’s antitrust-wielding critics whether integration into beer will exclude rivals who vertical search engines who, without access to the beer, have no chance to compete.  Yes, there are specialized beer search sites if you must know (or local beer search).  Or small breweries who, because of Google’s market share in search, cannot compete against Dogfish Head’s newest product.  But before we start the new antitrust investigation, Google has offered some new facts to clarify matters:

Similarly, the project with Dogfish Head brewery was a Googler-driven project organized by a group of craftbrewery aficionados across the company. While our Googlers had fun advising on the creation of a beer recipe, we aren’t receiving any proceeds from the sale of the beer and we have no plans to enter the beer business.

Whew.  What a relief.  But, I’m sure the critics will be watching just in case to see if Dogfish Head jumps in the search rankings.  Donating time and energy to the creation of beer is really just a gateway to more serious exclusionary conduct, right?  And Section 5 of the FTC Act applies to incipient conduct in the beer market, clearly.  Or did the DOJ get beer-related Google activities in the clearance arrangement between the agencies?