In 2014, I was the first to reveal previously-unknown Google contracts that required Android phone manufacturers and carriers to preload key Google apps, make them prominent, and in some instances not install competing apps. In 2018, the European Commission ruled this unlawful and imposed a €4.1 billion fine, and today the European Court of Justice upheld the finding and fine, and rejected the appeal.
The wheels of justice turn slowly. A ten digit fine is large, yet small relative to the benefit Google obtained by making its apps dominant in their respective fields — and demolishing competitors (or discouraging potential competitors from even trying). And justice delayed, by 12+ years since I first reported the problem, is in an important sense justice denied.
But there’s an even bigger problem lurking. Prior to me revealing the MADA contracts that embodied Google’s anticompetitive rules, Google leaders repeatedly claimed no such rules exist. Quoting from my 2014 article:
Andy Rubin, then Senior Vice President of Mobile at Google, in 2011 claimed that “[D]evice makers are free to modify Android to customize any range of features for Android devices.” He continued: “If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements [hyperlink in the original]. (After all, it would not be realistic to expect Google applications—or any applications for that matter—to operate flawlessly across incompatible devices).” Rubin’s post does not explicitly indicate that the referenced “basic compatibility requirements” are the only requirements Google imposes, but that’s the natural interpretation. Reading Rubin’s remarks, particularly in light of his introduction that Android is “an open platform,” most readers would conclude that there are no significant restrictions on app installation or search defaults.
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt offered particularly far-reaching remarks on Google’s rules about mobile apps and search defaults. After a 2011 Senate hearing about competition in online search, Senator Kohl asked Schmidt (question 8.a):
Has Google demanded that smartphone manufacturers make Google the default search engine as a condition of using the Android operating system?
Schmidt responded:
Google does not demand that smartphone manufacturers make Google the default search engine as a condition of using the Android operating system. …
One of the greatest benefits of Android is that it fosters competition at every level of the mobile market—including among application developers. Google respects the freedom of manufacturers to choose which applications should be pre-loaded on Android devices. Google does not condition access to or use of Android on pre-installation of any Google applications or on making Google the default search engine. …
Manufacturers can choose to pre-install Google applications on Android devices, but they can also choose to pre-install competing search applications like Yahoo! and Microsoft’s Bing. Many Android devices have pre-installed the Microsoft Bing and Yahoo! search applications. No matter which applications come pre-installed, the user can easily download Yahoo!, Microsoft’s Bing, and Google applications for free from the Android Market.
Schmidt’s response to Lee (question 15.b), to Franken (question 7), and to Blumenthal (question 7) were similar and, in sections, verbatim identical.
Rubin left Google in 2014 due to allegations of sexual harassment (albeit with a $90 million exit package). Eric Schmidt was CEO and executive chairman of Google from 2001 to 2015, then executive chairman and technical advisor of Google parent Alphabet through 2020. Neither has a current relationship with Google. But lies last forever. And Schmidt’s false statements to Congress were under penalty of perjury. Though the statute of limitations for perjury has run, representatives can still contact Schmidt, demand further testimony to explore his false statements, and publicly condemn his misconduct if they, like I, conclude it was perjury.