You are browsing the archive for Google.

California DMV’s Autonomous Vehicle Regulations Must Protect Users’ Privacy

3:48 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Driverless CarI was up in Sacramento today to call on the Department of Motor Vehicles to ensure that the regulations that they are developing to govern the use of autonomous vehicles – popularly known as driverless cars – will protect the operators’ privacy.

The company that will be most directly affected by the new autonomous vehicle regulations is Google, which is pioneering development of the robot-driven cars. The Internet giant was the driving force behind SB 1298, which charged the DMV with the task of developing the regulations and also rebuffed attempts to require privacy protections in the law.

However, it is not too late to implement privacy safeguards in this rulemaking and Consumer Watchdog called on the DMV to do so. Failure to act will mean substantial privacy risks from the manufacturers’ driverless car technology if there are not protections from what Google is best known for: the collection and use of voluminous personal information about us and our movements.

The DMV regulations must give the user control over what data is gathered and how the information will be used. Merely stating what data is gathered with no explanation of its use is woefully inadequate. The DMV’s autonomous vehicle regulations must provide that driverless cars gather only the data necessary to operate the vehicle and retain that data only as long as necessary for the vehicle’s operation. The regulations should provide that the data must not be used for any additional purpose such as marketing or advertising without the consumer’s explicit opt-in consent.

Without appropriate regulations, autonomous vehicles will be able to gather unprecedented amounts of information about the use of those vehicles. How will it be used? Just as we are now tracked around the Internet, will Google and other purveyors of driverless car technology now be looking over our shoulders on every highway and byway? Will the data be provided to insurance companies for underwriting purposes or to third parties that develop some kind of a driving score related to where and when individuals travel? Will it be used to serve in-car advertisements or advertisements through other venues in the Google suite of products? Will it be used to track our movements and those of surrounding cars and mobile devices so that Google’s advertisers can better locate us?

Google is the aforementioned leader in driverless car research and is attempting to steer regulatory efforts in various states, especially California. That’s why our concerns are so focused on the company. So I ask: Why won’t Google endorse simple privacy safeguards for its self-driving cars? I think there are two reasons.

First, Google’s entire business model is based on building digital dossiers about our personal behavior and using them to sell the most personal advertising to us. You’re not Google’s customer; you are its product – the one it sells to corporations willing to pay any price to reach you. Will the driverless technology be just about getting us from point to point or more about tracking how we got there and what we did along the way?

Second, computer engineers, who believe that more data is always better, are in charge at Google. They may not know what they would use data for today, but they think they may someday find a use for it and don’t want any restrictions on them now.

Google is first and foremost an advertising company; 98 percent of its $38 billion in revenue comes from advertising, and the more personalized the marketing the better. Indeed, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt has said, “We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

Read the rest of this entry →

Now Even Google Says Don’t Be A “Glasshole”

4:49 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Looks like even Google is finally figuring out the innate privacy invasive properties of its wearable computing device, Google Glass. The Internet giant has posted a list of do’s and don’t's on its Glass website that tells “Explorers” — the first group of people to get access to Glass for $1,500 — how not to be “Glassholes.”

You’ll recall that Chairman Eric Schmidt once said it was Google’s policy to get right up to the “creepy line,” but not to cross it. It seems pretty clear that some Googlers have figured out that Glass has crossed the line and are attempting a rowback.

From the list of Do’s:

Ask for permission.
Standing alone in the corner of a room staring at people while recording them through Glass is not going to win you any friends (see Don’ts #4). The Glass camera function is no different from a cell phone so behave as you would with your phone and ask permission before taking photos or videos of others.

And here’s Google’s final point on the list of Don’t's:

Be creepy or rude (aka, a ‘Glasshole’).
Respect others and if they have questions about Glass don’t get snappy. Be polite and explain what Glass does and remember, a quick demo can go a long way. In places where cell phone cameras aren’t allowed, the same rules will apply to Glass. If you’re asked to turn your phone off, turn Glass off as well. Breaking the rules or being rude will not get businesses excited about Glass and will ruin it for other Explorers.

You may have seen that Virgin Atlantic staff who greet “Upper Class” passengers — the airline’s name for First Class– as they arrive at Heathrow Airport are now sporting Glass purportedly to offer them information on such things as the weather at their destination.

How long do you think it will be before they are recording and videoing arriving passengers and maybe even linking it to facial recognition technology? Just, what we need, right? First Class “Glassholes.”

Posted by John Simpson, Privacy Project Director at Consumer Watchdog.

FTC Probes Google-Waze $1.1 Billion Deal After Consumer Watchdog Cites Antitrust Issues

3:40 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

FTC BuildingLess than two weeks ago after Google said it was buying Waze, developer of a mobile mapping application, for a reported $1.1 billion, the Federal Trade Commission has stepped in and said in effect, “wait just a minute here.”

Word of the FTC’s antitrust investigation was originally reported over the weekend by the New York Post and later confirmed by Google. It came less than a week after Consumer Watchdog wrote the FTC and the Department of Justice urging them to reject the deal.

Both agencies have the authority to scrutinize acquisitions for antitrust concerns and it wasn’t clear which agency was likely to handle it.

I did the prudent thing and wrote both. It looks like the FTC is listening — or at least shares many of our concerns. The antitrust problems with this deal are blatant.

“Google already dominates the online mapping business with Google Maps. The Internet giant was able to muscle its way to dominance by unfairly favoring its own service ahead of such competitors as Mapquest in its online search results,” I wrote in my letters. “Now with the proposed Waze acquisition the Internet giant would remove the most viable competitor to Google Maps in the mobile space. Moreover, it will allow Google access to even more data about online activity in a way that will increase its dominant position on the Internet.”

Read the letter to the FTC here.

John SimpsonIronically, Waze CEO Noam Bardin has made one of the strongest cases against the deal. He publicly described Google as his only competitor at last May’s All Things Digital conference. He said, “What search is for the Web, maps are for mobile…We feel that we’re the only reasonable competition to [Google] in this market of creating maps that are really geared for mobile, for real-time, for consumers — for the new world that we’re moving into.”

“You should take Bardin at his word,” I wrote in my letter to the FTC. “Approval of the Waze deal can only allow Google to remove any meaningful competition from the market. It will hurt consumers and hinder technological innovation. If the acquisition comes before the you, I urge you to reject it in the strongest possible terms.”

The investigation has just started, but the FTC is clearly off on the right foot.

Posted by John M. Simpson, Director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Follow Consumer Watchdog online on Facebook and Twitter.

Google’s Page Clueless When It Comes to Privacy Concerns About Glass

4:34 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Google CEO Larry Page simply doesn’t get it when it comes to privacy concerns about the Internet giant’s new computerized eyewear, Google Glass. He made that crystal clear at the annual shareholders’s meeting Thursday.

Google GlassI made my annual trek to Mountain View to attend the Internet giant’s shareholder meeting and pose some questions directly to Google’s top executives. I said Glass is one of the most privacy invasive and Orwellian devices ever made because it allows a user to surreptitiously photograph or video us or our kids. “It’s a voyeur’s dream come true,” I said, before noting the hypocrisy in unleashing a device that enables massive violations of everyone else’s privacy, but operating under rules that barred cameras and recording devices from the meeting. Take a look at a video from the meeting.

“Obviously, there are cameras everywhere, ” responded Page. “”People worry about all sorts of things that actually, when we use the product, it is not found to be that big a concern.”

“You don’t collapse in terror that someone might be using Glass in the bathroom just the same as you don’t collapse in terror when someone comes in with a smartphone that might take a picture. It’s not that big a deal. So, I would encourage you all not to create fear and concern about technological change until it’s actually out there and people are using it and they understand the issues.”

John SimpsonPage tried to compare the video cameras on ubiquitous smartphones with Google Glass. That’s exactly the point. There is a huge difference. I don’t collapse in fear that I’ll be videoed in the bathroom by a smartphone camera precisely because it’s obvious that someone is using the camera. I can politely ask them to stop, or escalate my protests as appropriate if necessary. Indeed, consider this satirical video, “Supercharge”, featuring Page and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt if you don’t understand what I mean. It’s obvious Schmidt is invading the privacy of the gentleman in the next stall. Take a look at the video. You’ll see what I mean.

It doesn’t work that with Glass and that’s what is so creepy. There’s an app that snaps a photo with a wink. People have no idea that they are being photographed or videoed. That’s what people are worried about and they want the ability to delete videos and photos from Google’s database when they discover their privacy has been invaded.
Page says we shouldn’t worry about “technological change until it’s actually out there and people are using it.” He’s wrong. You need to to think about the impact before the technology is implemented. That’s what’s entailed in the concept of privacy by design, something that Google just doesn’t seem to get.

And here’s another point to ponder: As Google was holding its annual meeting, The Washington Post was breaking the details of NSA’s overreaching, intrusive snooping on users of some of the biggest Internet companies including Google with its PRISM program. Can’t you imagine a billion Glass users and a billion winks and the data that would flow to NSA?

Posted by John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Follow Consumer Watchdog online on Facebook and Twitter.

Consumer Groups Reject Proposed Google Antitrust Settlement With European Commission

2:49 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

GoogleopolyConsumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic have objected to Google’s proposed European antitrust settlement, which relies heavily on labeling Google’s own services and on showing links to rivals in its search results, Consumer Watchdog said today.

“Consumer welfare is the ultimate test of any antitrust settlement. Google’s proposed Commitments fail to meet this standard,” wrote John M. Simpson, director of the U.S.- based public interest group’s Privacy Project in comments filed with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition. “Labeling does nothing but obscure the results of Google’s anticompetitive abuses. It does not resolve the fundamental issue of search manipulation.”

Simpson continued:

Google has developed a substantial conflict of interest. It no longer has an incentive to steer users to other sites, but rather to its own services. It is becoming even more effective at this and has a greater incentive to engage in manipulation now that it is merging data collected across all its services. The only way to deal with this conflict is to remove it. There needs to be a separation of Google’s different services and assets. At a minimum any remedy must insist that Google use an objective, nondiscriminatory mechanism to rank and display all search results – including links to Google products.

BEUC, The European Consumer Organization stressed the importance of search neutrality in its comments to DG-Comp:

It is important that Google is obliged to use an objective, non-discriminatory mechanism to rank and display all search results, including any links to Google products. We therefore call upon the European Commission to ensure that the non-discrimination principle is the starting point of the remedies.

Read Consumer Watchdog’s comments here (.pdf).

Read BEUC’s Comments here (.pdf).

After more than a year’s antitrust investigation by the European Commission, Google offered changes in its practices that it hopes will answer the Commission’s concern that Google is unlawfully favoring its own services in its search results. Other concerns expressed by the Commission are that Google appropriated content from other websites without permission, forced publishers to obtain most online ad services from Google and hindered advertisers’ ability to transfer campaigns across platforms.

The Commission has been “market testing” – taking comments from competitors and the public – on Google’s proposed deal for the last month. This week the Commission extended the deadline for comments until June 27 and Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said it is likely Google will be asked to do more.

Consumer Watchdog said there are “fundamental flaws” in Google’s proposed Commitments and noted the proposed remedy is based on two principles. First is labeling – Google must identify its own results that it is favoring. Second is the idea of presenting links to rival services.

“Neither of these proposed solutions gets to the heart of the problem. They will not restore a competitive search marketplace that will serve the interests of consumers. Google’s conduct has severely damaged competition, leaving consumers with less choice and facing higher prices,” wrote Simpson. “The Commission must insist on remedies that as much as possible restore the market position of Google’s rivals – one possibility could be requiring the preferencing for some period of time the search result listings of rivals over Google Shopping or Google Places.”

Consumer Watchdog continued:

Ultimately the solution must be based on the non-discrimination principle. Because Google is the gateway to the Internet for so many people, it has an obligation to honor the concept of search neutrality. Google must hold all services – especially its own – to exactly the same standards, using the same web crawling, indexing, ranking, display and penalty algorithms. A demand for this even-handed treatment of all services including Google’s in the display of search results has a precedent in the regulation of Computerized Reservation Systems, which were prevented from favoring the parent air carrier on the system.

Allowing Google to continue promoting its own services and demoting those of rivals, but requiring Google to label its own services does nothing but enshrine the uncompetitive status quo. In fact the results manipulation would continue and labeling could well have the undesired outcome of making Google’s services even more prominent and attractive to consumers. Consumers would have a far less effective choice of other services because these services would be less visible. The Commission must insist on true objectivity and search neutrality in Google’s results.

BEUC’s comments written by Augusta Maciuleviciute, Senior Legal Officer and Konstantinos Rossoglou, Senior Legal Officer, warned that Google’s proposal to offer links to rival services does nothing to stop Google from squeezing out competitors:

On the contrary, Google will now be able to profit not only from the traffic it diverts from competitors, but also from the new possibilities to charge them for the inclusion among the rival links. By requiring Google rivals to pay a price for their links, Google will be granted the right to monetize its anticompetitive behavior. It will have the incentive to provide links to the rivals who pay the most and not those who provide the best or most relevant results according to consumers’ search queries.

Consumer Watchdog said another obvious failure of the proposed settlement is the limited number of Google domains to which the Commitments would apply. The proposal only covers European Economic Area domains such as www.google.at, www.google.be, www.google.cz, etc. Consumer Watchdog noted that the home page of each of these EEA Google search domains has a clear link to www.google.com. “Many Europeans click on this link and use www.google.com for their searches, yet the proposed Commitments do not apply to this important part of Google’s business,” wrote Simpson.

Bipartisan Privacy Caucus Asks Important Privacy Questions About Google Glass

1:33 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Sergey Brin Wearing Google Glass Eight members of Congress have sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page asking tough and necessary questions about the Internet giant’s new wearable computing device, Google Glass.

The letter from members of the Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, whose Co-chair is conservative Joe Barton, (R-TX), says, “As members of the Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, we are curious whether this new technology could infringe on the privacy of the average American.”

It’s great to see that in a largely dysfunctional Congress some members can reach across the aisle and demonstrate that privacy is not a partisan issue. Besides Barton others signing the letter are Rep. John Barrow (D-GA), Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr. (D-GA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL), Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

The letter also poses several questions intended to make sure consumers’ rights are protected. They include:

  • When using Google Glass, is it true that this product would be able to use Facial Recognition Technology to unveil personal information about whomever and even some inanimate objects that the user is viewing? Would a user be able to request such information? Can a non-user or human subject opt out of this collection of personal data? If so, how? If not, why not?
  • In Google’s privacy policy, it states that the company “may collect device-specific information (such as your hardware model, operating system version, unique device identifiers, and mobile network information including phone number).” Would Google Glass collect any data about the user without the user’s knowledge and consent? If so, why? If not, please explain.
  • Will Google Glass have the capacity to store any data on the device itself? If so, will Google Glass implement some sort of user authentication system to safeguard stored data? If not, why not? If so, please explain.

Read a copy of the Bipartisan Privacy Caucus letter here.

John M. SimpsonThe Representatives want answers to their questions by June 14. I’m betting that Google stalls. Ultimately I think the Representatives will need a Congressional hearing where CEO Page has to answer queries under oath.

As word of the Privacy Caucus’s letter was being reported, Google was holding its annual meeting with developers. Google Glass product director Steve Lee claimed in a “fireside chat” that the Glass team takes privacy seriously.

What a joke! The fact is that Google has become a serial privacy violator. It’s executives just don’t understand what privacy means and there is no reason to expect that they will. For instance, asked about whether Glass will offer facial recognition technology, Lee said, “We’ve definitely experimented with it but it is not in the product today. I can imagine that existing…”

Posted by John M. Simpson, Director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Follow Consumer Watchdog online on Facebook and Twitter.

Trifecta — Patient Safety, Pollution Prevention & Privacy

6:10 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Patient Safety Advocates What a week! Three big victories in California will keep us safer from dangerous doctors, toxic polluters and privacy invasions, but we only got there thanks to your support.

State Senator Curren Price and Assemblyman Richard Gordon proposed yesterday to strip the California Medical Board of its authority over physician discipline. The physician-run Board has let dangerous doctors keep practicing as investigations take years to complete. You joined us, and families who lost loved ones to reckless prescribing, when we called for a transfer of doctor investigations to impartial prosecutors at the Department of Justice.

Senator Price said it all when he told the LA Times he proposed cutting the Board’s power because, “I don’t want anybody else to die.” With your help we’ll keep the pressure on in Sacramento to make this reform a reality.

On Wednesday, the state’s top toxics regulator shut down the state’s largest battery recycler, Exide, for leaking lead, arsenic and other toxins into the surrounding community for more than two decades. The action came only after Consumer Watchdog exposed endemic failures at the Department of Toxic Substances Control to prevent pollution and punish serial polluters in our report, Golden Wasteland. Nevertheless, Californians could be on the hook for millions in clean-up costs because the DTSC never required the company to put money away for cleanup.

Carmen BalberRounding out this week’s trifecta was a rare reversal by Google on the privacy front: The internet giant quietly stopped sharing consumers’ private emails and addresses with app developers that use its Google Play store. The reversal came after a Consumer Watchdog complaint to the Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General Kamala Harris that Google was not only violating consumers’ privacy, but violating its own agreement with the FTC not to share information without consumers’ permission.

And this breaking news: This morning, the Court of Appeal sided with us to reject Mercury Insurance’s attempt to throw out a case the company has delayed for nearly a decade. The suit would hold Mercury accountable for charging illegal broker fees to consumers. We are fighting that battle on a second front before an administrative judge in San Francisco right now.

So that’s really four big wins this week. Thanks for sharing them with us.
__________________________________________________________________
Posted by Carmen Balber, Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog. Follow Consumer Watchdog on Facebook and on Twitter.

Google Ending Privacy Breach Consumer Watchdog Targeted in FTC Complaint

12:40 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Google PlayGoogle apparently is ending an egregious privacy breach involving people who buy apps from its Google Play store using Google Wallet to pay. Consumer Watchdog filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission with a copy to California Attorney General Kamala Harris about what Google was doing. The complaint alleged that the Internet giant was violating its privacy policies and its “Buzz” consent agreement with the FTC.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA, also questioned Google about what it was doing. Google was sending to apps developers the name, email address and address of people who bought apps on Google play. It tried to claim that the the information was necessary for the transaction, but that’s clearly not the case when talking about downloading an app from its app store. Neither Apple nor Microsoft provide such personal information about people who buy apps from their stores. Google’s response to Rep. Johnson, confirmed what Google was doing and actually showed it was unnecessary. Consumer Watchdog sent a second letter to the FTC with a copy to California Attorney General Harris when Google answered Rep. Johnson’s letter.

On Tuesday WebProNews and DroidLife reported Google was addressing the concerns on a new Wallet Merchant Center it is rolling out and no longer sending the personal information about apps buyers.

I’m glad the change is coming, but I’ve got questions.

What role did the Federal Trade Commission or the California Attorney General’s office play in this change? Why did Google only act when formal complaints were filed? Will there be fines?

John M. SimpsonGoogle has become a serial privacy violator. You’ll remember that new sooner was the ink dry on the “Buzz” consent agreement than it was caught hacking around the privacy settings on the Safari browser used on iPhones, iPads and other Apple devices. It ultimately cost Google a fine of $22.5 million, which is pocket change to a company that has annual revenue of around $50 billion. It’s like giving a $25 parking ticket to a person who makes $50,000 a year.

Google is simply figuring that fines are a cost — and a minor one at that — of doing business. In case you missed it, on Monday Germany hit Google with a $189,225 for the Wi-Spy incident where its Street View Cars sucked up emails, URLs, passwords, account numbers as they snapped photos around the world.

In describing the fine The New York Times‘ Claire Cain Miller wrote:

Regulators in Germany, one of the most privacy-sensitive countries in the world, unleashed their wrath on Google on Monday for scooping up sensitive personal information in the Street View mapping project, and imposed the largest fine ever assessed by European regulators over a privacy violation.

The penalty? $189,225.

Put another way, that’s how much Google made every two minutes last year, or roughly 0.002 percent of its $10.7 billion in net profit.
It is the latest example of regulators’ meager arsenal of fines and punishments for corporations in the wrong. Academics, activists and even regulators themselves say fines that are pocket change for companies do little to deter them from misbehaving again, and are merely baked into the cost of doing business.

The fact Google is changing Google Wallet’s practices makes it clear Google violated the Buzz Agreement. Google claims that it is taking privacy seriously now that it is operating for 20 years under the Buzz Agreement. It isn’t and the regulators aren’t holding Google’s feet to the fire.

The company’s executives need to be held to account in a meaningful way. I’ve always argued the way to get corporate executives’ attention is to hit them with jail time when they flout the law. It’s not going to happen here, but a meaningful fine for the second Buzz violation sure would be nice.

Posted by John M. Simpson, Director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Follow Consumer Watchdog online on Facebook and on Twitter.

Google’s Income Tax Rate Was Only 8 Percent

2:26 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

Evil GoogleGoogle, the company that makes its money by assembling digital dossiers about its users and selling them to advertisers for the highest bid, reported earnings Thursday. Revenue increased 31 percent to $13.97 billion and net income in the first quarter rose 16 percent to $3.35 billion, or $9.94 a share.

Admittedly as I listened to the earnings call my eyes began to glaze over. CEO Larry Page droned on about how “over the last two years, we’ve worked hard to increase our velocity, improve our execution and focus on the big bets that will make a difference in the world.”

Yada yada..

But when Page turned the call over to Patrick Pichette, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, for a nitty gritty report on the accounting details something really caught my attention.

John M. Simpson Pichette said that in the first quarter of 2013 Google only paid an effective income tax rate of eight percent. I was shocked. I knew that by exotic tax strategies called the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” Google had managed to trim its overall effective tax rate to 22.2 percent in 2009. Now they’ve got it down to 8 percent. If this keeps up, people like you and me will be paying Google when they file their return.
Supposedly the corporate income tax rate in the United States is 35 percent. In the UK, Google’s second largest market it’s 28 percent. No corporation seems to pay that.

Here’s a proposal: Various court decisions have concluded that when it comes to things like the First Amendment, as Mitt Romney famously put it, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Well, OK, let’s tax them just like people.
____________________________________________________________________
Posted by John M. Simpson, Director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Following Consumer Watchdog on Facebook and Twitter.

EU’s Google Antitrust Deal Beats FTC, But Still Doesn’t Do Enough

4:26 pm in Uncategorized by Consumer Watchdog

European Union

Details of Google’s proposed settlement with the European Union to avoid antitrust charges have been leaking out of Brussels over the weekend. And while EU competition authorities appear to have accomplished more that the gentle tap on the wrist meted out by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the deal as so far revealed doesn’t do enough to end Google’s anti-competitive practices.

The provisions of the EU agreement still have to be publicly released, but based on what’s emerged so far, here’s the good news: Unlike the deal with the FTC, which wasn’t even a consent agreement, the EU is demanding that the settlement would be legally binding for five years. A third party would ensure compliance and Google would face fines of 10 percent of its global annual sales if it fails to keep its promises.
The bad news is that instead of requiring Google to change its algorithm and treat all services the same, the deal will apparently allow Google to continue favoring its own services in search results so long as it labels them as its own.

Google essentially has been using its dominant position as gatekeeper of the Internet to unfairly promote its own service at the expense of competitors and consumers. In Europe it has about 90 percent of the search market. In the U.S. it’s around 70 percent. About all this agreement appears to do is require Google to be transparent about the way it unfairly abuses its market position.

Indeed, labeling could actually leave the impression with some consumers that the Google-branded result was a better one, rather than one that received a better position because Google had its thumb on the scale.

Another problem with the deal is that it doesn’t seem to do anything to rectify the damage to the market that Google has already wreaked. I’d have thought some sort of disgorgement of the Internet giant’s ill-gotten gains would have been appropriate.

John SimpsonThe next step in the EU process is for the Google deal to be “market tested.” The competition authorities will make the settlement public and receive comments on whether it solves the problems or not. I suppose it’s possible there may ultimately be stronger sanctions than currently appear to be the case in what’s been leaked or that the authorities will do more after the “market testing,” but frankly I doubt it.

Bottom line: Google has had its wings clipped a little bit. Google will be legally bound to follow labeling rules in Europe for five years and have a third-party enforcer to ensure that happens. It also means that European search results will look different than in the U.S. unless Google decides to take the same approach here or someone forces the company to do so. That could happen. Several state attorneys general led by the Texas attorney general have an open antitrust probe. I’d hope that they would settle for nothing less than what the Europeans got.

And further down the road? Fairsearch Europe has recently filed another antitrust complaint with the EU accusing Google of using Android software “as a deceptive way to build advantages for key Google apps in 70 percent of the smartphones shipped today.” Now that mobile is becoming more important than the wired Internet, Google is flexing its muscles there. The more things change, the more they stay the same…

Posted by John M. Simpson, head of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Follow Consumer Watchdog on Facebook and Twitter.