For my latest column in The Hill, I explored the European Union’s (EU) endlessly expanding push to regulate all facets of the modern data economy. That now includes a new effort to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) using the same sort of top-down, heavy-handed, bureaucratic compliance regime that has stifled digital innovation on the continent over the past quarter century.

The European Commission (EC) is advancing a new Artificial Intelligence Act, which proposes banning some AI technologies while classifying many others under a heavily controlled “high-risk” category. A new bureaucracy, the European Artificial Intelligence Board, will be tasked with enforcing a wide variety of new rules, including “prior conformity assessments,” which are like permission slips for algorithmic innovators. Steep fines are also part of the plan. There’s a lengthy list of covered sectors and technologies, with many others that could be added in coming years. It’s no wonder, then, that the measure has been labelled the measure “the mother of all AI laws” and analysts have argued it will further burden innovation and investment in Europe.

As I noted in my new column, the consensus about Europe’s future on the emerging technology front is dismal to put it mildly. The International Economy journal recently asked 11 experts from Europe and the U.S. where the EU currently stood in global tech competition. Responses were nearly unanimous and bluntly summarized by the symposium’s title: “The Biggest Loser.” Respondents said Europe is “lagging behind in the global tech race,” and “unlikely to become a global hub of innovation.” “The future will not be invented in Europe,” another analyst bluntly concluded.

That’s a grim assessment, but there is no doubt that European competitiveness is suffering today and that excessive regulation plays a fairly significant role in causing it. As I noted in my column, “the EU’s risk-averse culture and preference for paperwork compliance over entrepreneurial freedom” had serious consequences for continent-wide innovation.  I note in my recent column how:

After the continent piled on layers of data restrictions beginning in the mid-1990s, innovation and investment suffered. Regulation grew more complex with the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which further limits data collection and use. As a result of all the red tape, the EU came away from the digital revolution with “the complete absence of superstar companies.” There are no serious European versions of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple or Amazon. Europe’s leading providers of digital technology services today are American-based companies.

Let’s take a look at a few numbers that illustrate what’s happened in Europe’s tech sector over the past quarter century. Here’s an old KPGM breakdown of market caps for public Internet companies over an important 20 year period, from 1995 to 2015, when the digital technology marketplace was taking shape. Besides the remarkable amount of churn over that period (with only Apple appearing on both lists), the other notable thing is the complete absence of any European companies in 2015.

Next, here’s a chart I constructed using CB Insights data for global unicorns ($billion valued companies) from 2010 up through early 2022. It shows how the U.S. dominates fully half the list with China having a 16% share, but all of the European Union’s firms equal just a 9 percent slice of the world’s share.

If you want to see a per capita breakdown of VC investment by country, here’s a handy Crunchbase News chart. While the U.S. is geographically much larger than Europe, a breakdown of VC funding on a per capita basis reveals that only Estonia ($915B) and Sweden ($700B) have startup investment on par with America ($808B). No other European country has even half as much per capita VC investment as the U.S., and most don’t even have a quarter as much.

As we enter the “age of AI,” what will the EU’s same regulatory model for mean for AI, machine learning, and robotics in Europe? We do have some early data on that, too. Here’s a breakdown of AI-related VC activity and AI unicorn in 2021 from the recent State of AI Report 2021, with European countries already trailing far behind:

Also, here’s some data on recent AI investment by region from the latest Stanford “AI Index Report 2022” which again highlights a gap that is only growing larger:

It’s important to listen to what actual AI innovators across the Atlantic have to say about the new EU regulatory efforts. Just last month, the UK-based Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec), an advocacy group for Britain’s technology-led startups, published a report entitled, “What do AI Startups Want from Regulation?” Coadec surveyed its members to gauge their feelings about the EU’s proposed approach to AI regulation, as well as the UK’s. 76% of those startups said that their business model would be either negatively affected or become infeasible if the UK were to echo the EU by making AI developers liable, and an equal percentage said they had varying concerns about whether it’s technically even feasible to make their datasets “free of errors,” as the EU looks set to demand. Respondents also said they feared that the new AI Act would be particularly burdensome to small and mid-size entrepreneurs because they cannot afford to deal with the costly compliance hassles like the larger competitors they face. This would end of being a replay of the burdens they faced from GDPR, which decimated small businesses. “The experience of GDPR demonstrated how unclear, complex and expensive regulations drove many startups out of business, and disproportionately impact startups that survived–GDPR compliance cost startups significantly more than it did the Tech Giants,” the Coadec report concluded.

At least those UK-based innovators might be in a slightly better position post-Brexit with the British government now looking to chart a different–and much less burdensome–governance approach for digital technologies. In fact, the UK government recently released a major policy document on “Establishing a Pro-Innovation Approach to Regulating AI,” which makes a concerted effort to distinguish its approach from the EU’s. “We will ask that regulators focus on high risk concerns rather than hypothetical or low risks associated with AI,” the report noted. “We want to encourage innovation and avoid placing unnecessary barriers in its way.” This is consistent with what the UK government has been saying on technology governance more generally. For example, in recent report advocating for Innovation Friendly Regulation, the UK government’s Regulatory Horizons Council argued that, when it comes to the regulation of emerging technologies like AI, “it is also necessary to consider the risk that the intervention itself poses.” “This would include the potential impact on benefits from a particular innovation that might be foregone; it would also include the potential creation of a ‘chilling effect’ on innovation more generally,” the Council concluded. Clearly, this approach to technology policy stands in stark contrast to the EU’s heavy-handed model. So, there is a chance that at least some innovators based in the UK can escape the EU’s regulatory hell.

What about AI innovators stuck on the European continent? What are they saying about the regulations they will soon face? The European DIGITAL SME Alliance, which is the largest network of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European ICT sector, represents roughly 45,000 digital SMEs. In comments to the EC about the impact of the law, the Alliance highlighted how costly the AI Act’s conformity assessments and other regulations will be for smaller innovators. “This may put a burden on AI innovation” the Alliance argued, because smaller developers have limited financial and human resources of SMEs.” “[A] regulation that requires SMEs to make these significant investments, will likely push SMEs out of the market,” the group noted. “This is exactly the opposite of the intention to support a thriving and innovative AI ecosystem in Europe.” Moreover, “SMEs will not be able to pass on these costs to their customers in the final customer end pricing,” the Alliance correctly noted because, “[t[he market is global and highly competitive. Therefore, customers will choose cheaper solutions and Europe risks to be left behind in technology development and global competition.”

In March, the Alliance also hosted a forum on “The European AI Act and Digital SMEs,” which featured comments from some operators in this space. Some speakers were quite timid and you could sense that they might have feared pushing back too aggressively against the European Commission so as not to get on the bad side of regulators before the rules go into effect. But Mislav Malenica, Founder & CEO Mindsmiths didn’t pull any punches in his remarks. His company Mindsmiths is trying to build autonomous support systems in many different fields, but their ability to innovate and compete globally will be severely curtailed by the EU AI Act, he argued.

I usually don’t spend time transcribing people’s comments from events, but I went back and watched Malenica’s multiple times because his remarks are so powerful and I wanted to make sure others hear what he was saying. [Malenica’s opening comments during the event run from 42:29 to 49:34 of the video and then he has more to say during Q&A beginning at the 1:27:28 of the video.] Here’s a quick summary of a few of Malenica’s key points (listed chronologically):

• “I’m not sure we are doing everything we can do actually to create an environment that’s innovation friendly.”
• “we see a lot of uncertainty. We see fear.”
• “basically we won’t be able to get funding here.”
• while reading through the AI Act, he notes, “I don’t see start-ups being mentioned anywhere, and startups are the main vehicles of innovation.” […] “I find it very arrogant”
• if AI Act becomes law, “what we’ll do in Europe is we’ll create a new market and that’s the AI markets based on fear,” and in how to just build products that avoid the wrath of government or lawsuits.
• “we are really stifling innovation” and that means Europeans will have to import autonomous products from foreign companies instead of making them there.

Later, during in the Q&A period, Malenica notes how his first virtual currency startup had to use half it’s investment capital just dealing with regulatory compliance issues, and most venture capitalists wouldn’t get behind launching in Europe because of such legal hassles. He reflects upon what this mean for other innovators going forward as the EU prepares to expand their regulatory regime for AI sectors:

• “I don’t think we’re missing talent. That’s just a consequence” of all the regulation. “We are missing a sense that you have opportunities here. If you the opportunities here, then the talent will come, the funding will come, and so on because people see that they’ll be able to make money, they’ll be able to build companies, and so on.”
• “If we now take a look at the 10 biggest companies market capitalizations in the world, we’ll see that none of them comes actually from Europe” with U.S. tech companies dominating the list. “So, we missed that wave completely.” Why? “Because we didn’t inspire anyone to take action,” and that is about to happen for AI.
• “We need to decide if we are going to be a land of opportunities, or will we be just consumers of other people’s tech, the same we are right now” for digital software and services.
• “We’re already finding excuses for the loss” of the AI market, he argues.

Malenica’s comments are extraordinarily demoralizing if you care about innovation. Now, I’m an American and one way to look at this dismal situation is that, by hobbling its own startups and existing AI innovators, Europe is doing the U.S. another favor by essentially taking itself out of the running in next great global tech race. Europe’s actions may also mean that America gains many of their best and brightest if they come to the U.S. when looking to create the next great algorithmic service or application because they can’t do so in the EU. This is exactly what happened over the past few decades for Internet startups, Malenica noted.

But that’s dismal news in another sense. Europe is filled with brilliant innovators, highly-skilled talent, world-class educational institutions, and even many venture capitalists looking to invest in this arena. Unfortunately, the continent’s suffocating regulatory approach makes it nearly impossible for digital technology innovators to have a fighting chance. Through their heavy-handed policies, European officials have essentially declared their innovators “guilty until proven innocent.” And that means that Europeans and the rest of the world are being deprived of many important life-enriching and life-saving AI applications that those innovators could create. Technological innovation is not a zero-sum game that only one country can “win.” Innovation drives growth and prosperity and lifts all boats as its benefits spread throughout the world. When European innovators prosper, people all over the world prosper along with them.

Is there any chance the European Commission softens its stance toward emerging technologies and looks to adopt a more flexible governance approach that instead treats AI innovators as innocent until proven guilty? I think it is extremely unlikely that will happen because, as Malenica noted, European technology policy is too rooted in fear of disruption and extreme risk-aversion. EU officials are forgetting that the most important lesson from the history of technological innovation is there can be no progress without some risk-taking and corresponding disruption. My favorite quote about the relationship between risk-taking and human progress comes from Wilbur Wright who, along with his brother, helped pioneer human flight. “If you are looking for perfect safety,” Wright said, “you would do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds.” European policymakers are essentially forcing their best and brightest innovators to sit on the fence and watch the rest of the world fly right past them on the digital technology and AI front. The ramifications for the continent will be disastrous. Regardless, as I noted in concluding my recent Hill column, Europe’s approach to AI “shouldn’t be the model the U.S. follows if it hopes to maintain its early lead in AI and robotics. America should instead welcome European companies, workers and investors looking for a more hospitable place to launch bold new AI innovations.”

Alas, European officials appear ready to ignore the deleterious impact of their policies on innovation and competition and instead make regulation their leading export to the world. In fact, the European Commission will soon open a San Francisco office to work more closely with Silicon Valley companies affected by EU tech regulation. European leaders have basically surrendered on the idea of home-grown innovation and are now plowing all their energies into regulating the rest of the world’s largest digital technology companies, most of which are headquartered in the United States. It’s no wonder, then, that The Economist magazine concludes that, “Europe is the free-rider continent” that “has piggybacked on innovation from elsewhere, keeping up with rivals, not forging ahead.” Instead, “the cuddly form of capitalism embraced in Europe has markedly failed to create world-beating companies,” the magazine argues.

European officials want us to believe that they are somehow doing the world a favor by being its global tech regulator, when instead the are simply solidifying the power of the largest digital tech companies, who are the only ones with enough resources–mainly in the form of massive legal compliance teams–to live under the EU’s innovation-crushing regulations. Sadly, many US policymakers hate our own home-grown tech companies so much now, that they are willing to let this happen. In a better world, those American lawmakers would stand up to European officials looking to bully tech innovators and we would reject the innovation-killing recipe that the EU is cooking up for AI markets and expects the rest of the world to eat.

Additional Reading on AI & Robotics:

• Adam Thierer, “How Science Fiction Dystopianism Shapes the Debate over AI & Robotics,” Discourse, July 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Why is the US Following the EU’s Lead on Artificial Intelligence Regulation?” The Hill, July 21, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Algorithmic Auditing and AI Impact Assessments: The Need for Balance,” Medium, July 13, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “What I Learned about the Power of AI at the Cleveland Clinic,” Medium, May 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, American Enterprise Institute (April 2022).
• Adam Thierer, “How to Get the Future We Were Promised,” Discourse, January 18, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “A Global Clash of Visions: The Future of AI Policy,” The Hill, May 4, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “A Brief History of Soft Law in ICT Sectors: Four Case Studies,” Jurimetrics, Vol. 61 (Fall 2021): 79-119.
• Adam Thierer, “Artificial Intelligence Governance in the Obama–Trump Years,” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, Vol, 2, Issue 4 (2021).
• Adam Thierer, “The Worst Regulation Ever Proposed,” The Bridge, September 2019.
• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Huddleston Skees & Adam Thierer, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Colorado Technology Law Journal, Vol. 17 (2018).
• Adam Thierer & Trace Mitchell, “No New Tech Bureaucracy,” Real Clear Policy, September 10, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “OMB’s AI Guidance Embodies Wise Tech Governance,” Mercatus Center Public Comment, March 13, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Europe’s New AI Industrial Policy,” Medium, February 20, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Trump’s AI Framework & the Future of Emerging Tech Governance,” Medium, January 8, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Soft Law: The Reconciliation of Permissionless & Responsible Innovation,” Chapter 7 in Adam Thierer, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2020): 183-240.
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “Counterpoint: Regulators Should Allow the Greatest Space for AI Innovation,” Communications of the ACM, Volume 61, Issue 12, (December 2018): 33-35.
• Adam Thierer, Andrea O’Sullivan & Raymond Russell, “Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy,” Mercatus Research (2017).
• Adam Thierer, “Shouldn’t the Robots Have Eaten All the Jobs at Amazon By Now?” Technology Liberation Front, July 26, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “Are ‘Permissionless Innovation’ and ‘Responsible Innovation’ Compatible?” Technology Liberation Front, July 12, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Growing AI Technopanic,” Medium, April 27, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Day the Machines Took Over,” Medium, May 11, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “When the Trial Lawyers Come for the Robot Cars,” Slate, June 10, 2016.
• Adam Thierer, “Learning by Doing,” the Process of Innovation & the Future of Employment,” Technology Liberation Front, September 25, 2015.
• Adam Thierer, “Problems with Precautionary Principle-Minded Tech Regulation & a Federal Robotics Commission,” Medium, September 22, 2014.
• Adam Thierer, “On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2013.

According to the BBC, the European Commission is apparently set to adopt formal rules guaranteeing a so-called “right to be forgotten” online.  As part of the Commission’s overhaul of the 1995 Data Protection Directive, this new regulation will mandate that, “people will be able to ask for data about them to be deleted and firms will have to comply unless there are ‘legitimate’ grounds to retain it,” the BBC reports.

I’ve written about “right to be forgotten” and “online eraser button” proposals before in my Forbes essay, “Erasing Our Past On The Internet,” a Mercatus white paper on “Kids, Privacy, Free Speech & the Internet: Finding the Right Balance.” and in this essay here on the TLF on “The Conflict Between a “Right to Be Forgotten” & Speech / Press Freedoms.” While I can appreciate the privacy and reputational concerns that lead to calls for such information controls, the reality is that a mandatory “right to be forgotten” is a recipe for massive Internet censorship.  As I noted in those earlier essays, such notions conflict violently with speech rights and press freedoms. Enshrining into law such expansive privacy norms places stricter limits on others’ rights to speak freely, or to collect and analyze information about others.

The ramifications for journalism are particularly troubling. Good reporting often requires being “nosy” while gathering facts. Journalists (and historians) might suddenly be subjected to restraints on their research and writing. The Brits have been struggling with this when trying to enforce gag orders and “super-injunctions” on media providers to protect privacy. It hasn’t turned out well, especially since new social media platforms and speakers easily evade these rules. (See my Forbes column, “With Freedom of Speech, The Technological Genie Is Out of the Bottle.”)

Thus, for a “right to be forgotten” to work, a more formal and robust information control regime will need to be devised to censor the Net and make it “forget”about the digital footprints we left online. Will the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” model be applied? Beyond the chilling effect associated with dragnet takedowns of online information, it’s unlikely that approach will really work. Keep in mind, this isn’t as simple as just telling large social media operators to delete information on demand. The reality is, as computer scientist Ben Adida notes in his essay “(Your) Information Wants to be Free,” the same forces and factors that complicate other forms of information control, such a copyright and speech restrictions, also complicate the protection of facts about you. “[I]nformation replication doesn’t discriminate: your personal data, credit cards and medical problems alike, also want to be free. Keeping it secret is really, really hard,” Adida correctly notes.

The fact is, information is instantaneously replicated online many times over on many different platforms — sometimes manually, sometimes automatically. Regulation will need to grapple with how to put the genie back in the bottle when countless others have already forwarded or commented on the piece of information someone later wants “forgotten.” And how would automated online archiving / storage services be affected? Will such sites and services be expected to find and purge every possible mention / reference of the offending information? Will they be compensated for the countless requests they receive to delete countless pieces of digital information, or are they just expected to do that out of the goodness of their hearts?

I could go on, but instead I’d just ask that you read some of the essays I’ve already cited and then take a look at this outstanding essay on “9 Reasons Why a ‘Right to be Forgotten’ is Really Wrong,” by Joris van Hoboken, a PhD candidate at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam. It’s an outstanding critique of the notion.

Please keep in mind: Just because I raise questions like these it does not mean I’m opposed to the notion that online operators should be held to higher standards and be expected to properly safeguard our online information and perhaps even delete much of it upon request. But moving this process into the legal / regulatory arena opens up a huge Pandora’s Box of potential problems. Censoring the Net — even when it’s for a cause many favor — is very hard and will give rise to many unintended consequences.

[P.S. Here’s a podcast conversation about these issues where Jerry Brito and I discuss the ramifications of such a regulatory regime.]

[Cross-posted at Truth on the Market]

Here we go again.  The European Commission is after Google more formally than a few months ago (but not yet having issued a Statement of Objections).

For background on the single-firm antitrust issues surrounding Google I modestly recommend my paper with Josh Wright, Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust Case Against Google (forthcoming soon in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, by the way).

According to one article on the investigation (from Ars Technica):

The allegations of anticompetitive behavior come as Google has acquired a large array of online services in the last couple of years. Since the company holds around three-quarters of the online search and online advertising markets, it is relatively easy to leverage that dominance to promote its other services over the competition.

(As a not-so-irrelevant aside, I would just point out that I found that article by running a search on Google and clicking on the first item to come up.  Somehow I imagine that a real manipulative monopolist Google would do a better job of white-washing the coverage if its ability to tinker with its search results is so complete.)

More to the point, these sorts of leveraging of dominance claims are premature at best and most likely woefully off-base.  As I noted in commenting on the Google/Ad-Mob merger investigation and similar claims from such antitrust luminaries as Herb Kohl:

If mobile application advertising competes with other forms of advertising offered by Google, then it represents a small fraction of a larger market and this transaction is competitively insignificant.  Moreover, acknowledging that mobile advertising competes with online search advertising does more to expand the size of the relevant market beyond the narrow boundaries it is usually claimed to occupy than it does to increase Google’s share of the combined market (although critics would doubtless argue that the relevant market is still “too concentrated”).  If it is a different market, on the other hand, then critics need to make clear how Google’s “dominance” in the “PC-based search advertising market” actually affects the prospects for competition in this one.  Merely using the words “leverage” and “dominance” to describe the transaction is hardly sufficient.  To the extent that this is just a breathless way of saying Google wants to build its business in a growing market that offers economies of scale and/or scope with its existing business, it’s identifying a feature and not a bug.  If instead it’s meant to refer to some sort of anticompetitive tying or “cross-subsidy” (see below), the claim is speculative and unsupported.

The EU press release promotes a version of the “leveraged dominance” story by suggesting that

The Commission will investigate whether Google has abused a dominant market position in online search by allegedly lowering the ranking of unpaid search results of competing services which are specialised in providing users with specific online content such as price comparisons (so-called vertical search services) and by according preferential placement to the results of its own vertical search services in order to shut out competing services.

The biggest problem I see with these claims is that, well, they make no sense.

First, if someone is searching for a specific vertical search engine on Google by typing its name into Google, it will invariably come up as the first result.  If one is searching for price comparison sites more generally by searching in Google for “price comparison sites” lots of other sites top the list before Google’s own price comparison site shows up.  If one is searching for a specific product and hoping to find price comparisons on Google, why on Earth would that person be hoping to find not Google’s own efforts at price comparison, built right into its search engine, but instead a link to another site and another several steps before finding the information?  As a practical matter, Google doesn’t actually do this particularly well (not as well as Bing, in any case, where the link to its own shopping site almost always comes up first; on Google I often get several manufacturer or other retailer sites before Google’s comparison shopping link appears further down the page).

But even if it did, it’s hard to see how this could be a problem.  The primary reason for this?  Google makes no revenue (that I know of) from users clicking through to purchase anything from its shopping page.  The page has paid search results only at the bottom (rather than the top as on a normal search page), the information is all algorithmically generated, and retailers do not pay to have their information on the page.  If this is generating something of value for Google it is doing so only in the most salutary fashion: By offering additional resources for users to improve their “search experience” and thus induce them to use Google’s search engine.  Of course, this should help Google’s bottom line.  Of course this makes it a better search engine than its competitors.  These are good things, and the fact that Google offers effective, well-targeted and informative search results, presented in multiple forms, demonstrates its (and the industry’s as a whole) degree of innovation and effort–the sort of effort that is typically born out of vibrant competition, not the complacency of a fat, happy monopolist.  The claim that Google’s success harms its competitors should fall on deaf ears.

The same goes for claims that Google favors its own maps, by the way–to the detriment of MapQuest (paging Professor Schumpeter . . . ).  Look for the nearest McDonalds in Google and a Google Map is bound to top the list (but not be the exclusive result, of course).  But why should it be any other way?  In effect, what Google does is give you the Web’s content in as accessible and appropriate a form as it can.  By offering not only a link to McDonalds’ web site, as well as various other links, but also a map showing the locations of the nearest restaurants, Google is offering up results in different forms, hoping that one is what the user is looking for.  Why on Earth should Google be required to use someone else’s graphical presentation of the nearby McDonalds restaurants rather than its own simply because the presentation happens to be graphical rather than in a typed list?

So what’s going on?

First off, in essence, the EU is taking up the argument put forth by (the EU’s very own) Foundem in its complaint against Google.  Foundem is a UK price comparison site.  It claims that it was targeted by Google and demoted in Google’s organic search results.  Its argument is laid out here.  But Google responds that it is simply applying its algorithm to the site (along with all other sites) and finds some things lacking.  In fact, all Foundem does, in essence, is pull information from other sites and present it on its own.  While in general this is little different than what Google does (although the quality of the information and its presentation may be different), from the point of view of a user who has already searched once in Google, the prospect of Google serving up sites requiring the user to make duplicate searches in other search engines to find the information she is looking for would seem to be pretty poor.  In part for this reason Google disfavors sites in its searches that simply duplicate other sites’ content.  While Foundem may offer something more than the typical spam site that Google intends to block, this fact is not immediately obvious (and, for what it’s worth, apparently Google was eventually convinced of the difference and has lifted the “penalty” formerly imposed on Foundem).

To make an antitrust claim out of this, one has to adopt a sort of “essential facilities” stance with respect to Google, in essence claiming that (Google’s users’ interests be damned) if Google is the only way users can get to its competitors’ sites, it must provide that access.  The essential facilities doctrine, dealt a near-death blow by the Supreme Court in Trinko, has long been on the ropes.  As Areeda and Hovenkamp said of it, “the essential facility doctrine is both harmful and unnecessary and should be abandoned.”  That is true in this case, as in the others before it.  On the one hand Google does not preclude, nor does it have the power to preclude, users from accessing Foundem’s site:  all they need do is type “www.foundem.com” into a web browser.  To the extent that Google can and does (or did) limit Foundem’s access to its search results page, it is not controlling access to an “essential facility” in any sense other than Wal-Mart controls access to its own stores.  “Google search results generated by its proprietary alogrithm and found on its own web pages” is not a market to which access should be forcibly granted by the courts or legislature.  While Europe takes a less critical view of the doctrine (see Microsoft), it shouldn’t.

And as Josh has pointed out, Microsoft’s fingerprints are all over these cases (see also here and here where Microsoft Deputy General Counsel, Dave Heiner, essentially lays out the unfortunate state of play in this arena–a state of play that has ensnared Microsoft in the past).  The relevance of which is just this: When the EU went after Microsoft itself, many of us decried the case in part as a witch hunt by competitors looking for advantage through regulatory means when they were unable to get it through innovation, marketing and the like.  The case against Google in the EU looks to be following the same unfortunate pattern, and even the same unfortunate case-law.  Even if it is not true that the EU actually behaves in this fashion (indeed, appearances can be deceiving, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, etc., etc.), it is costly to everyone that it is so widely perceived to do so.  This case doesn’t help matters.  It has always been true that the Holy Grail (to its competitors) of a Section 2 (or Dominance) case against Google was a substantive stretch but a near-inevitability nonetheless.  But as Josh and I conclude our paper:

Indeed, it is our view that in light of the antitrust claims arising out of innovative contractual and pricing conduct, and the apparent lack of any concrete evidence of anticompetitive effects or harm to competition, an enforcement action against Google on these grounds creates substantial risk for a “false positive” which would chill innovation and competition currently providing immense benefits to consumers.

The cost of poorly-considered, seemingly politicized, competitor-induced antitrust cases is substantial.

The recent European Commission proposal to create a radical and likely near impossible-to-implement “right to be forgotten” provides an opportunity to do some thinking about how privacy norms should be established.

In 1961, Italian liberal philosopher and lawyer Bruno Leoni published Freedom and the Law, an excellent, if dense, rumination on law and legislation, which, as he emphasized, are quite different things.

Legislation appears today to be a quick, rational, and far-reaching remedy against every kind of evil or inconvenience, as compared with, say, judicial decisions, the settlement of disputes by private arbiters, conventions, customs, and similar kinds of spontaneous adjustments on the part of individuals. A fact that almost always goes unnoticed is that a remedy by way of legislation may be too quick to be efficacious, too unpredictably far-reaching to be wholly beneficial, and too directly connected with the contingent views and interests of a handful of people (the legislators), whoever they may be, to be, in fact, a remedy for all concerned. Even when all this is noticed, the criticism is usually directed against particular statutes rather than against legislation as such, and a new remedy is always looked for in “better” statutes instead of in something altogether different from legislation. (page 7, 1991 Liberty Fund edition)

The new Commission proposal is an example. Apparently the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive didn’t do it.

Rather than some central authority, it is in vernacular practice that we should discover the appropriate “common” law, emphasizes Leoni.

“[A] legal system centered on legislation resembles . . . a centralized economy in which all the relevant decisions are made by a handful of directors, whose knowledge of the whole situation is fatally limited and whose respect, if any, for the people’s wishes is subject to that limitation. No solemn titles, no pompous ceremonies, no enthusiasm on the part of the applauding masses can conceal the crude fact that both the legislators and the directors of a centralized economy are only particular individuals like you and me, ignorant of 99 percent of what is going on around them as far as the real transactions, agreements, attitudes, feelings, and convictions of people are concerned. (page 22-23, emphasis removed)

The proposed “right to be forgotten” is a soaring flight of fancy, produced by detached intellects who lack the knowledge to devise appropriate privacy norms. If it were to move forward as is, it would cripple Europe’s information economy while hamstringing international data flows. More importantly, it would deny European consumers the benefits of a modernizing economy by giving them more privacy than they probably want.

I say “probably” because I don’t know what European consumers want. I only know how to learn what they want—and that is not by observing the dictates of the people who occupy Europe’s many government bureaucracies.

The European Commission may order Microsoft to strip Internet Explorer from certain versions of Windows, according to a preliminary ruling against Microsoft stemming from a complaint brought by Opera. Opera claims that Microsoft is “abusing its dominant position” by bundling IE with Windows, and consequently denying consumers “genuine choice” among web browsers.

If the European Commission upholds Opera’s complaint against Microsoft, it wouldn’t be the first time Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust violations stemming from applications bundled with Windows.

Back in 2004, the Commission ruled that it was illegal for Microsoft to bundle its Windows Media Player with Windows and ordered Microsoft to offer a Media Player-less version of the operating system. Microsoft responded by unveiling the wryly named “Windows XP Reduced Media Edition.” Unsurprisingly, the European Commission rejected the name, so Microsoft renamed the OS “Windows N.”

Despite Windows N’s fairly neutral-sounding name, consumers showed little interest in Windows N when it hit the shelves. It’s quite obvious why Windows N was a flop–why would anybody want to run an operating system lacking useful components, especially when plenty of alternatives are available online at the click of a button?

The same reasoning is sure to relegate a browserless Windows (Windows: Reduced Internet Edition, perhaps?) to commercial irrelevance. Such a product would be placed on shelves solely to satisfy regulators convinced that they’re somehow “protecting” consumers by ensuring inferior products can be had.

How would the average user even select a preferred browser in the first place without a pre-installed browser? While OEMs could always pre-install a browser, anyone who wanted to install (or reinstall) a browserless version of Windows from scratch would need to jump through hoops just to get online.

More to the point, Opera’s claim against Microsoft looks downright absurd given the reality of today’s increasingly competitive browser marketplace. Despite IE being bundled with Windows, Firefox has gained significant ground on IE in recent years. Four years ago, IE had 91% global market share, while Firefox hovered around 3.5%. Now, Firefox is almost at 21% market share, and IE recently dropped below 70%.

Firefox’s ascent did not happen because of a mass exodus of users from Windows to other operating systems. To be sure, Windows has faltered a bit as of late, but Firefox has gained the following of a massive number of Windows users who elected to download and install Firefox as a replacement for Internet Explorer. This illustrates that users are perfectly willing to pick their favorite application for a given task, even if that means downloading a third-party app on the Internet. Plenty of other programs, like VLC and Google Desktop, have taken off among Windows users even though these apps largely duplicate the functionality of bundled Windows components.

Where does all this leave Opera? Unlike Firefox, Opera is still a laggard in terms of market share. Blaming Opera’s inability to gain a large user base on the bundling of IE with Windows, however, is entirely misplaced. The folks at Opera may feel that going after Microsoft might help them peel off a few users-or, at least, get Opera’s name out there in the press-but Opera’s biggest enemy is certainly not Internet Explorer.