Google is being scrutinised by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegedly deceptive practices when it comes to online search and search advertising.
In a report titled "Googleopoly VIII: The FTC's Antitrust Investigation of How Google's Deceptive & Predatory Search Practices Harm Consumers," Scott Cleland of research firm Precursor makes a variety of assertions that Google is intentionally gaming its own system to give its own ads and tools an unfair advantage, while making it impossible for rivals to compete.
Cleland claims, "Google's deceptive search practices manipulate search results to anti-competitively advantage some Google content and disadvantage some competitors' content, all while misrepresenting to the public that Google's search business is unbiased and never manipulates search results."
The company denies the accusations.
Cleland also alleges that it is in Google's financial best interest to exploit the privacy and personal information of users, and that Google's search results are based on subjective judgments of human website raters, and executive decisions aimed at ensuring that Google content gets ranked first.
A Google spokesperson responded by declaring Cleland's report "absurd," adding, "Our search results are designed to answer people's questions, and that's the only consideration, not political viewpoints, not advertising dollars."
The Google spokesperson also explains, "Larry Page and Sergey Brin wrote in their 2004 Founders Letter that Google's results "are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating." Of course, the goal of search results is to rank the most relevant results above the less relevant results, and since our results are driven by user feedback, they are a type of mathematically-derived opinion."
Scott Cleland's objectivity has been questioned in the past. Some claim his analysis is just propaganda paid for by companies like Microsoft and AT&T to promote an anti-Google agenda. With Google already being investigated by the FTC, some commentators are suspicious of the timing of this report.
The stats and figures used in Cleland's report do not appear to be in question. However, the filter through which they are viewed can vastly change the perspective. The data may be accurate, but the spin put on the data may be misleading.
It is possible that Google is simply a victim of its own success. It is quite possible that a virtuous circle is operating, where the success of Google tools causes them to jump to the top of Google search results, which drives the success of Google tools, and that circle feeds the revenue stream.