Dear Mr Lawsky, dear Mr Weber Many thanks for commenting my article: it is really helpful to hear the views of parties involved in the case. You explain your views in a very clear way and I do not think there is further need for me to reply in detail. I leave it up to the readers to make up their mind on the issues at stake and on the instances brought up by the different players. Just I would like to take the occasion to make a general comment and address what seems to be a common misunderstanding about the role of antitrust. In the last two sentences of his comment, Mr Weber suggests that weakening Google’s dominance would benefit consumers. However, weakening a company’s dominance cannot be the purpose of antitrust enforcement. Antitrust enforcement should only target a misuse of that dominance, not the dominance in itself. That is very important, because antitrust intervention could otherwise distort the incentives of any company in the future to achieve same dominance levels through pro-competitive behaviour, such as investing in the development of innovative and efficient technologies. In other words: in order to warrant antitrust intervention against Google, there must be evidence that Google misused its market power, not just that Google holds that power. Best regards Mario Mariniello
Mario Mariniello is a research fellow at Bruegel, an international economics think tank.