Yelp takes a cue from D.C. Court’s Antitrust Ruling Against Google
“Google has thus capitalized upon the primacy of the first search page by crowding the page with Google products, such as OneBox, and pushing organic search results to the side.” – Yelp
On the back of a recent judgment from The suit alleges that Google is “engaging in various anticompetitive practices designed to monopolize the markets for local search services and local search advertising.” The suit alleges that Google is “engaging in various anticompetitive practices designed to monopolize the markets for local search services and local search advertising.”
The complaint charges that Google has abandoned “its stated mission to deliver the best information available to its consumers” in favor of “forcing its own low-quality local search content on them.” Far from its roots when it launched in 1998 as “an unbiased and impartial matchmaker sitting between consumers and all the web had to offer,” Google’s mission has morphed into one meant to “enhance its own bottom line and stifle competition,” said Yelp. The complaint states that Google has engaged anti-competitive behavior, including “stealing information from Yelp and passing it off to Google as its own; preferencing Google local search results over Yelp; implementing a ‘OneBox’ feature to prioritize Google local search services The complaint explains that Google has crowded the top of the page with Google products, such as OneBox. Organic search results are then pushed to the bottom. This is especially true on mobile devices, such as iPhones and Androids. The smaller screen size makes it necessary for users to scroll through multiple screens before they can even reach organic search results. The court determined that Google did not have monopoly power over “search advertising”, but it was a relevant advertising market. Google has announced that it will appeal the decision.
The Yelp lawsuit also argues that the “local search advertising” market in the United States is an antitrust market that should be considered, that Judge Mehta’s opinion supports this reading, and that Google According to the complaint, local search advertising accounts for approximately 95% of Yelp’s revenue. It added:
“Google’s success in siphoning users away from Yelp in the local search market deprives Yelp of user traffic. This loss of traffic had a negative impact on Yelp in three ways. First, it directly caused Yelp advertising revenues …. to be lost. Third, it has harmed Yelp’s ability to improve its content every day, and thus has harmed Yelp’s ability to compete.” Third, it has impaired Yelp’s ability to improve its content every day, and thus has harmed Yelp’s ability to compete.”
The complaint is seeking relief on seven counts, including monopolization of the local search services market; attempted monopolization of the local search services market; attempted monopolization of the local search advertising market; unlawful tying of local search services to general search services; illegal monopoly leveraging in the local search services market; illegal monopoly leveraging in the local search advertising market; and violation of California Unfair Competition Law.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: bigtunaonline
Image ID: 248103928
Eileen McDermott
Eileen McDermott, Editor-in Chief of IPWatchdog.com is a veteran IP and legal journalist. Eileen McDermott is a veteran IP journalist and has held editorial and management positions at
.
