Consumer Watchdog has asked the Federal Trade Commission to take immediate action against Google for tracking user web browsing on Apple Mac PCs, even though Apple allows Safari operating system users to disable tracking. Precisely what action the FTC could take is not clear, since Google has stopped the tracking already.
Consumer Watchdog did not mention iPhone or iPad devices in its complaint, but the insertion of cookies to track behavior apparently could affect users of iPhones or iPads as well.
The complaint illustrates a growing business issue Google faces, namely regulator scrutiny of the sort that lead to the breakup of the AT&T system in the early 1980s and the consent decree Microsoft battled and lived with for two decades.
And dare one mention that Apple now is bigger than both Google and Microsoft put together? The point is that Google now faces the sort of mounting scrutiny of just about any significant move it makes, and there is historical precedent for arguing that, eventually, “something” will be done to limit Google’s further expansion into new lines of business.
The issue of Google bypassing built-in security settings on the Safari web browser on iPhones and iPads, which Google now has discontinued, or the FTC complaint, is not the biggest problem.
The danger is that Google has provided regulators one more bit of evidence that it might now be time to start regulating Google, as antitrust regulators earlier had placed limits on Microsoft’s own freedom to bundle applications and essentially enter new businesses.
Some might note that Microsoft has spent 21 years fighting antitrust battles with the U.S. government and similar battles with regulators for the European Community.
Most do not remember that there was serious talk of splitting Microsoft up into separate companies in 2000. Microsoft agreed to a court settlement in 2002 that ended that threat, but at a price. Microsoft essentially was placed in hand cuffs.
In April 2000 U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruleed that Microsoft unlawfully maintained a monopoly in Windows and unlawfully tied its browser to Windows. The proposed remedy was a breakup of Microsoft into two different companies, one for apps and the other for operating systems.
The Department of Justice and Microsoft agreed on a proposed settlement for the antitrust case in 2001.
In November 2002, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved the settlement, which included a five-year consent decree on the part of Microsoft. That deal was extended in 2006 to 2009 and then again in 2009 unitl May 2011.
The consent decree barred Microsoft from entering into Windows agreements that excluded competitors from new computers, and forced the company to make Windows interoperable with non-Microsoft software. In addition, an independent technical committee would field complaints that might arise from competitors.
But some would argue that the tedious litigation made Microsoft more cautious as a company.
Some now say growing scrutiny of Google is not helped when Google takes actions that raise the perception that it now might require similar throttling.
The problem for Google is going to be growing antitrust scrutiny that, sooner or later, is likely to be applied.
So far, little discussion of that sort seems to have occurred about Apple. History suggests such scrutiny ultimately will happen. Apple already is a bigger company that Google and Microsoft put together.
Sooner or later, should Apple continue to grow, antitrust scrutiny will start to happen.
The point is that Google cannot, henceforth, take the risk of appearing “too big, too cavalier or too influential.” Dumb mistakes will have consequences.
Consumer Watchdog did not mention iPhone or iPad devices in its complaint, but the insertion of cookies to track behavior apparently could affect users of iPhones or iPads as well.
The complaint illustrates a growing business issue Google faces, namely regulator scrutiny of the sort that lead to the breakup of the AT&T system in the early 1980s and the consent decree Microsoft battled and lived with for two decades.
And dare one mention that Apple now is bigger than both Google and Microsoft put together? The point is that Google now faces the sort of mounting scrutiny of just about any significant move it makes, and there is historical precedent for arguing that, eventually, “something” will be done to limit Google’s further expansion into new lines of business.
The issue of Google bypassing built-in security settings on the Safari web browser on iPhones and iPads, which Google now has discontinued, or the FTC complaint, is not the biggest problem.
The danger is that Google has provided regulators one more bit of evidence that it might now be time to start regulating Google, as antitrust regulators earlier had placed limits on Microsoft’s own freedom to bundle applications and essentially enter new businesses.
Some might note that Microsoft has spent 21 years fighting antitrust battles with the U.S. government and similar battles with regulators for the European Community.
Most do not remember that there was serious talk of splitting Microsoft up into separate companies in 2000. Microsoft agreed to a court settlement in 2002 that ended that threat, but at a price. Microsoft essentially was placed in hand cuffs.
In April 2000 U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruleed that Microsoft unlawfully maintained a monopoly in Windows and unlawfully tied its browser to Windows. The proposed remedy was a breakup of Microsoft into two different companies, one for apps and the other for operating systems.
The Department of Justice and Microsoft agreed on a proposed settlement for the antitrust case in 2001.
In November 2002, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved the settlement, which included a five-year consent decree on the part of Microsoft. That deal was extended in 2006 to 2009 and then again in 2009 unitl May 2011.
The consent decree barred Microsoft from entering into Windows agreements that excluded competitors from new computers, and forced the company to make Windows interoperable with non-Microsoft software. In addition, an independent technical committee would field complaints that might arise from competitors.
But some would argue that the tedious litigation made Microsoft more cautious as a company.
Some now say growing scrutiny of Google is not helped when Google takes actions that raise the perception that it now might require similar throttling.
The problem for Google is going to be growing antitrust scrutiny that, sooner or later, is likely to be applied.
So far, little discussion of that sort seems to have occurred about Apple. History suggests such scrutiny ultimately will happen. Apple already is a bigger company that Google and Microsoft put together.
Sooner or later, should Apple continue to grow, antitrust scrutiny will start to happen.
The point is that Google cannot, henceforth, take the risk of appearing “too big, too cavalier or too influential.” Dumb mistakes will have consequences.
