Yelp v. Google

Answer:

For many years, Google has used its unlawfully maintained monopoly in general search to dominate local search, including self-preferencing its own lower-quality local services when consumers search with local intent. This anticompetitive conduct limits consumer choice, stifles innovation, and drives traffic and advertising revenue away from Google’s local search competitors like Yelp. The recent landmark decision in U.S. v. Google unequivocally found that Google willfully used illegal means to maintain its monopoly in the general search market. This decision is a watershed moment in antitrust law, and we see it as a strong foundation for the case Yelp has brought against Google to address its anticompetitive behavior in the local search and local search advertising markets.

Answer:

Yelp is seeking a remedy that levels the playing field and provides a fair and open internet for all. While the discovery process will inform potential remedies, one potential solution is outlined in the Focus on the User plan, which proposes that Google’s general search algorithm could bring the best of the internet to consumers as part of a seamless user experience.

Answer:

Google's anticompetitive conduct serves to protect their monopoly while limiting consumer choice and denying them the most relevant and highest-quality information in response to their searches. Google's local search results are, on average, shorter, more prone to error, less subject to quality control, and less likely to be useful to consumers than Yelp's local search results and those of other local search competitors.

Answer:

No. Yelp’s claims have never been pursued in court, let alone dismissed. In 2023, in the government’s antitrust case, Judge Mehta ruled there was a lack of evidence that Google’s degradation of specialized vertical providers, like Yelp, had an anticompetitive effect in general search — but Yelp is not a competitor in the general search market. Yelp’s complaint explains how Google harms competition in the local search and local search advertising markets, including through self-preferencing its own lower-quality offerings and exclusive billion-dollar deals with web browsers and device makers.

The FTC’s 2011 investigation focused on Google’s anticompetitive conduct in different search verticals. The FTC closed its inquiry in early 2013 without filing suit, although a leaked FTC staff memo made clear that FTC staff had recommended legal action. We disagreed with the FTC’s decision not to take legal action at the time. This decade-old decision has since faced significant criticism and emboldened Google to further engage in self-preferential conduct, including siphoning users toward its own lower-quality content and away from Yelp and others — to the detriment of consumers, competition, and advertisers.

Answer:

Yelp is seeking ‌injunctive relief, monetary damages, and a declaratory judgment that Google’s conduct violates antitrust laws. Yelp is seeking a remedy that both addresses Google’s past misconduct and protects against future anticompetitive behavior. When companies like Yelp have the opportunity to compete, it changes the paradigm for how consumers access information online. A level playing field where Google competes fairly will allow new innovations to emerge for the benefit of consumers and businesses.