[toomuchtodo]

> (usually defined through possession of pricing power, which is very hard to argue Google has in many of the free services in which it is dominant.)

They can dictate AdWords pricing though, no? And where else are you going to go? Bing?

[dragonwriter]

> They can dictate AdWords pricing though, no?

Perhaps; they certainly have a very large share of search advertising and its a paid market, but whether they have pricing power is a fact question that I haven't seen strong reasons to believe either way on. Its pretty clear that there are competing places for online, even search-specific, advertising, and that firms make cost-benefit considerations in choosing these; its not clear to me that there is any range in which Google can increase AdWords prices without losing some business to its competitors, even if AdWords is so attractive at its current price point that it draws the vast majority of spending.

[green_throwaway]

> They can dictate AdWords pricing though, no?

It's an auction model. The buyer literally sets the price.

[toomuchtodo]

And Google dictates the rules of the auction marketplace.

[dragonwriter]

> And Google dictates the rules of the auction marketplace.

Every company "dictates the rules" on which its sells product. Pricing power -- the key test in antitrust for a monopoly -- requires that they be able to change those rules so as to raise prices within some range without business moving to alternatives; in the case of AdWords, it would mean that Google could make it more expensive for the same results without any net migration to any other advertising vendor.

Is that the case? I don't see compelling evidence either way.

[green_throwaway]

In a way that has never been suggested to harm consumers or be even remotely anti-competitive. So your point being?

[toomuchtodo]

Point: Google is a monopoly. I don't believe enough research has been done to decide if they've used their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.

Interested to see what the EU conclusions are.