The Consequences of Search Bias: How Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine Remedies Google's Unrestricted Monopoly on Search in the United States and Europe

Introduction In today's Internet-dependent era, Internet users expect that their online searches will yield "neutral," or unadulterated and not manually tampered with, results. 1 For example, a runner looking to buy new shoes online who enters "trail running shoes" into a search engine would expect the results to include all of the available websites relevant to her search query. 2 Moreover, she would expect that the websites on the first results page are the best or most relevant and that the results at the top of the page are of better quality than the results at the bottom. This display of search results is considered neutral in quality; 3 however, this is not always how results are displayed because many search engines demonstrate "search bias." For example, the search engine Google preferences its own services, like Google Shopping and Google News, by listing them first on the results page, regardless of their quality relative to other websites. 4 Moreover, Google has removed relevant websites from the results by demoting websites such that, practically, they may never be found. 5 This is search bias. 6 Google is able to assert preference for its own services in a market in which it does not have dominance because of its dominance in the general search market. 7 This is a violation of antitrust law. 8 As a result of this biased conduct, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the European Union's European Commission ("EC") and its Directorate-General ("DG") ...