Analysis
Summer 2017 / Issue 54
A Closer Look at the EU’s $2.7
Billion Swipe at Google
So the Google decision is in.
Being found to have abused
a dominant position under Euro-
pean Union (EU) antitrust laws is
not exactly surprising. Close anti-
trust observers have long pointed
out that EU law is different than
U.S. antitrust law.
The need to abide by different
laws in different countries should
not come as a surprise to Google.
Companies doing business in for-
eign jurisdictions agree to comply
with the laws where they oper-
ate – even when those laws are
different or questionable. How-
ever, there are several aspects to
this case that raise questions or
concerns.
Reasons for concern start with
the fact that this investigation was
originally launched back in 2010,
seven years ago. To be dragged
out for so long is procedurally
appalling. No company should
face such a tortured path to
determining its legal fate.
The decision is also making
news for its eye popping fine of
$2.7 billion. What makes this fine
in particular so questionable is
it comes as a result of a domi-
nance case that took seven years
SEAN HEATHER, Vice
President of the U.S.
Chamber’s Center for
Global Regulatory
Cooperation (GRC)
to determine if Google was dominant and in fact abusive in
its conduct. Dominance cases, unlike cartels, are subjective
determinations, sometimes highly subjective. But the Euro-
pean Commission can’t on one hand take seven years to find
a violation, while at the same time levy the largest antitrust fine
the world has ever seen. Surely, if Google’s conduct deserved
such a record fine, the case against Google would have been
concluded long ago.
For all that care about sound competition enforcement, an
even bigger problem has come in the form of the imposed
remedy. The Commission’s conduct remedy could put Goo-
gle at risk of perpetually violating the European Commission’s
order. Today it is not at all clear how far Google must go to
satisfy the Commission’s order. The penalty for non-compli-
ance is stiff, set as a percentage of average daily worldwide
revenue for each day Google is found to be out of compli-
ance. Not only are these additional penalties for non-compli-
ance extraterritorial in nature, but a company should not be
constantly looking over its shoulder to know how to comply
with the law.
Further, all companies should take note that the EU has
sent a signal that it is prepared to judge algorithms in the
overwhelming procompetitive era of big data as a matter of
competition concern. If heavy-handed approaches to big data
are taken as a matter of competition enforcement, innovation
will be threatened. After all innovation is the very thing all com-
panies rely on to compete.
Others may charge the European Commission’s decision
as being biased against an American firm. However, upon a
closer look, what is clear is the Google decision exposes the
difference between U.S. and EU’s antitrust laws, the Commis-
sion’s poor ability to run a timely proceeding, and the problem
of potentially overreaching remedies.
Source: https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/closer-look-the-eu-s-27-billion-swipe-google
Are Temporary Employment Rules About to Change?
The new Government Work Program 2017-2020 includes
a requirement for companies to create full-time, indefinite
employment positions for any role that exists more than 6
months. Today, organizations commonly engage individuals
for up to 5 years via temporary employment agencies. Given
26
AmCham Macedonia Magazine
that full benefits are paid to these employees, the practice
is largely motivated by the need for greater flexibility when
dismissing employees for business reasons or poor perfor-
mance. Thus, this would be a radical decrease in employment
flexibility for companies and should be watched carefully.