Google has argued that a bill introduced by the U.S. Congress has the potential to compromise the safety of users and harm products like Search and Maps.
is called American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA)Bill S.2992 contains bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
The purpose of AICOA is to create a level playing field for businesses to compete online. It targets allegedly anti-competitive behavior, such as platforms favoring their own products and services over those of competitors.
Google claims the bill does more harm than good.Written by Royal Hansen, Google VP of Privacy, Safety and Security Engineering blog post The company’s concerns about S.2992 were listed earlier this week.
Does Google’s claim stand up? Let’s look at Google’s arguments and compare them to what’s outlined in the bill.
How the Antitrust Act Hurts Google and Others
Google has four main arguments against Act S.2992:
- It compromises security by disabling essential product integrations.
- It opened up Google’s products to foreign companies.
- It limits Google’s efforts to combat misinformation.
- It doesn’t address valid security concerns.
Does the Act prohibit product integration?
Google didn’t point out any specific wording in the bill that prohibits product integration, so I can only speculate on what the company is dealing with.
I believe google is referring to Section 3.1 The Act stipulates that it will be illegal for platforms to:
“Preferring the products, services or lines of business of the operator of the protected platform over the products, services or lines of business of other commercial users on the protected platform in order to seriously harm competition.”
Google may also refer to Section 3.2which states that the platform would be illegal:
“Restrict the ability of other commercial users’ products, services or lines of business to compete on the Covered Platform relative to the products, services or lines of business of the Operator of the Covered Platform in such a way as to seriously harm competition.”
This could affect how Google integrates products, such as search, maps and business profiles, because companies with similar products can’t compete on the same level.
Section 3.8 May also draw the ire of Google, which would make it illegal:
“Unless necessary, severely restrict or prevent protected platform users from uninstalling software applications that have been pre-installed on the protected platform, or change defaults that guide or direct protected platform users to use products or services provided by the protected platform operator set up.”
This could affect how Google integrates its products, as it must grant users the ability to separate Google’s applications from each other.
“I tend to agree with Google’s position,” Ericka Johnson, a senior associate specializing in cybersecurity at Squire Patton Boggs LLP, commented via email. “This legislation seems to have all the best intentions – to promote more competition among the big online platforms. [But] Because the act prohibits basic product integration, [Google] Its products may not be protected by default. “
Ultimately, Johnson added, “this can lead to unintended consequences, especially for small businesses that may not have the resources to understand the nuances of defense against cybersecurity attacks beyond relying on the default settings provided.”
However, the bill does add that platforms may restrict users from uninstalling software “to ensure the security or functionality of the covered platforms.”
Does the bill allow foreign companies to take advantage of Google’s products?
Google said the bill would require companies to open up their platforms to outside parties, which could lead to foreign companies using them to gain access to data on U.S. companies and citizens.
Google points out Section 3.4 The Act states:
“Severely restricts, hinders or unreasonably delays the ability of business users to access or interoperate with the same platforms, operating systems or hardware or software features available to Covered Platform Operator’s products, services or lines of business as Business Users do on Covered Platforms Products or services offered that compete or will compete.”
Whether this will have the effect Google describes is a matter of interpretation.
“While efforts to promote competition are generally good for the U.S. economy and society, I think we need to be careful about … unintended consequences,” Johnson noted. “Cybersecurity is a national security issue, especially given the existing cybersecurity threats from Russia and other countries, and I think Congress must be careful not to weaken American online platforms.”
Does the bill limit Google’s ability to fight disinformation?
Google argued that S. 2992 would limit its ability to take action against malicious content because the act mandated “non-discriminatory treatment.”
In making the argument, Google states Section 3.9 The Act states that it would be illegal to:
“…for the user interface of any Covered Platform, including the search or ranking functions provided by the Covered Platform, the Products of the Covered Platform Operator shall be treated more favourably than under mandatory standards relative to other business users’ products, services or lines of business , service or line of business neutral, fair and non-discriminatory treatment of all business users.”
If Google loses the ability to “discriminate” against competitors by lowering their rankings, entities may be more likely to spread misinformation.
Does the bill fail to address effective safety concerns?
Here’s Google’s take on the bill as it relates to “effective” security concerns:
“…The amended Act states that we do not have to interoperate with or provide access to data with entities that pose ‘obvious’ and ‘significant’ security risks. But this assumes we know in real time which risks are significant and can prevent us from Block moderate or emerging security risks that clearly do not meet the ‘significant’ threat criteria.”
In other words, Google believes the bill will prevent it from taking action on minor threats before they become major security concerns.
“Threat actors are very sophisticated,” Johnson added, “and look for every opportunity to exploit weaknesses in an organization’s IT infrastructure.”
Section 2.2 The bill does say that technology platforms do not have to house entities that “have a clear national security risk.” However, I can’t find anything that explicitly limits Google’s ability to mitigate security risks of non-state concern.
The bill also lists affirmative defenses against breaches of any unlawful conduct outlined in the legislation. One of these defenses includes protecting user security and privacy.
Technically, that means Google can block any entity it deems a security threat as long as it can provide enough evidence that user security is at risk.
Are Google’s claims valid?
Other tech giants — who would be bound by legislation if AICOA passed into law — responded to Google’s concerns.
For example, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has launched a Don’t destroy what works Raise awareness of the potential impact of S.2992.
Backers of the bill say critics miss the point that AICOA is designed to make it easier for small businesses to compete with large monopolies.
On Tuesday’s Morning Joe Show, Senator Klobuchar explained what she was accomplishing by introducing the bill:
“…what the bill says is that if you’re going to sell something on your own platform, you can’t favor it over other competitive commercial products. Because that’s what they’re doing. They start Buying one by one, basically outsmarting the competition because they have access for people to buy other competitors. That’s not fair capitalism. That’s when antitrust steps in.”
Senator Klobuchar’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
What happens if I pass AICOA?
If Congress passes AICOA into law, it could affect many of the major technology platforms people use every day.
For example, in the case of Google Search, users may see a narrowed-down experience.
For example, Google may not be able to make its own products more visible than others, which means it can’t display a local Google Business Kit when searching for restaurants.
Search looks more like it used to be when there were only ten blue links with some ads at the top.
Featured Image: rafapress/Shutterstock
