COMPETITION : COMMISSION HAPPY WITH GOOGLE'S NEW PROPOSALS.

Third time lucky? The third batch of proposals from Google - which is suspected of tampering with the traffic on the market of online research in Europe - suits the European Commission. On 5 February, Commissioner Joaquin Almunia announced: "I believe that the new proposal obtained from Google after long and difficult talks can now address the Commission's concerns. Without preventing Google from improving its own services, it provides users with real choice between competing services presented in a comparable way". Almunia reported that no competition authority in the world had obtained as many concessions from Google. So, after a three-year procedure, an amicable arrangement is likely - the Mountain View-based company will thus avoid paying a 3.7 billion fine, which represents 10% of its turnover in 2012.

DECISION NOT YET FINAL

But that does not mean the end of this story: the Commission will contact the 18 plaintiffs to explain why it feels that its main concerns have been addressed through these concessions. It could potentially still amend the commitments required from the US firm. The commissioner noted that the final decision would probably not be made for another few months. Meanwhile, Google is in a hurry to wrap things up. Its Vice-President, Kent Walker, said that "We have been working with the European Commission to address issues they raised and look forward to resolving this matter". To do so, Kent pledged that: "We will be making significant changes to the way Google operates in Europe."

Google has been in the hot seat about its practices on the EU online search market (in which it holds a share of between 75% and 90%) since the EU executive opened an investigation on 30 November 2010. The Commission had pointed out potential abuses of dominant position that could affect users' choices on the internet and constitute discrimination against competitors.

NEW CONCESSIONS

The Commission accused Google of preferential treatment of its specialised vertical research services (travel or restaurants); copying the content of competitors' services without their consent; conclusing exclusive advertising agreements; banning advertisers from advertising on competitor advertising...