Latest News

Yet the company has been dogged for years by widespread allegations that it violates its own pledge by manipulating the search results that remain the core of the company and primary source of its enormous profits.

Google insists that its results have always been "unbiased and objective" and that "our search results are the best we know how to produce." But for competitive reasons, it never disclosed the secret algorithms that produce those results, so no one outside the company knew for sure. A growing chorus of complaints from companies like Expedia, Yelp and, especially, Microsoft that Google manipulates the results to favor its interests at the expense of competitors led both the United States government and the European Union to take up the issue. On Thursday, after nearly two years of investigation, the Federal Trade Commission rendered a verdict: Google isn't evil.

It may have been "aggressive," as the commission delicately put it. But "regarding the specific allegations that the company biased its search results to hurt competition, the evidence collected to date did not justify legal action by the commission," said Beth Wilkinson, outside counsel to the F.T.C. "The F.T.C.'s mission is to protect competition, and not individual competitors."

The decision is "a huge victory for Google," Randal Picker, a professor of commercial law at the University of Chicago Law School and a specialist in antitrust and intellectual property, told me just after this week's decision. It's also a vindication of the integrity of Google's search results and the company's credibility. "There's never been any evidence that consumers were harmed by Google's practices and no evidence that Google ever engaged in any manipulation that violates antitrust law," Eric Goldman, professor of law and director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of  Law, said.

The decision is also likely to set standards for competition on the Internet for years to come. It's a blow to competitors like Microsoft, which has been stirring up opposition to Google for years, not to mention newer rivals like Facebook, Apple and Amazon. "The gloves will be off," Professor Picker predicted. "The F.T.C. has indicated it's going to be taking a very cautious approach toward regulating competition on the Internet."

But will the decision ultimately prove to be good for consumers?

The F.T.C. did secure some concessions from Google regarding patent licensing and advertiser options. But to call those a slap on the wrist would be an overstatement. What mattered most to both Google users and competitors was Google's search practices, which had never been put under the regulatory microscope to such a degree and which the F.T.C. left untouched.

Google's search results have evolved significantly from its early, simpler days. When I typed "flight JFK to LAX" on Google this week, I got three categories of results: paid ads at the top and on the right; a Google-produced chart comparing flight options with the disclaimer, which you need to click on, that "Google may be compensated by these providers"; and so-called organic results below that. The first two organic results were entries for Expedia, a rival to Google's travel site. But given the layout and size of my screen, none of the organic results were visible unless I scrolled down.

However clearly labeled, the prominence of Google's own travel results gives pause to some antitrust experts. "Location is important," Professor Picker said. "No one thinks otherwise. Years ago, it was important for airlines' reservations systems to be on the first screen. But I'm not sure this is an antitrust problem." Still, the issue is likely to be a focus of the European Union's investigation of Google, and the European Union will probably be less sympathetic to unbridled competition on the Internet than the American authorities, and more inclined to protect competitors.

My flight search results seem to bear out the finding that Google doesn't manipulate organic results, and the paid ads were clearly labeled. But what about the chart Google put together, the result of Google's 2011 acquisition of the travel site ITA Software? It's certainly useful to anyone planning to book a flight, and it's easy to use. It's information I'd like to see as a consumer. But does it eliminate the need to go to Expedia, leveraging Google's dominant position in search to harm a competitor? And given that the results in the box may reflect payments to Google, is the information objective? Or try some shopping options, like "Nike shoes." On the top right — the first thing my eyes hit upon — was a box put together by Google, with pictures of Nike shoes and prices from various retailers. The organic results featured several Nike entries and various shoe retailers, but no comparison shopping sites, at least not on the first page. Google discloses that the retailers in the box, too, may have made payments to Google.

It's easy to imagine how frustrating this is to Google shopping competitors like Nextag, a comparison shopping site that's been one of the loudest complainers about Google.

And for Microsoft, the ruling must be especially painful. Microsoft faced monopolization charges and years of costly and distracting litigation after it tied its Internet Explorer browser to its dominant operating system. From Microsoft's point of view, Google is doing the same thing by placing information from its own travel and shopping sites so prominently above its organic results.

But Microsoft is hardly a disinterested observer. Its rival Bing search engine also displays its own shopping and travel results, albeit not as prominently as Google does. (Microsoft has argued that it's not dominant in search, so that doesn't matter.)

And Google maintains that any comparison to Microsoft and the browser wars is outdated and irrelevant. It's easy for consumers to ignore Google's travel and shopping results and go straight to the organic results. There, Expedia is just a click away. No one needs to install anything. "It's not clear to me that the way users interacted with Microsoft back in the 1990s is analogous to Google search in 2013," Professor Goldman said. "Many of us then did not have a practical choice for a browser. There are still plenty of choices in search."

 Professor Goldman did the same search I did, "flight JFK to LAX." "I don't like this at all," he said of the Google results. "It's stuffed with paid ads." He tried rival Bing. "It's got news results, which is really bizarre," he said. "But otherwise, it's pretty much the same," including a box from the Bing travel site. "I'd probably just go directly to United.com., then Orbitz and Google travel."

More broadly, Professor Goldman noted that Google's dominance in search may no longer be relevant since so many consumers are accessing sites through apps on their smartphones. "If they like Yelp and Expedia, they just put the app on their phones. That completely bypasses Google," he said.

Professor Goldman said he believed the F.T.C. reached a "sensible" decision. "If Google does something as well or better as anyone else, what's the harm? We want search engines to make our lives better, and if they do, it's a win for the consumer. We're getting exactly what we wanted."

Whether the results Google produces, now bloated with paid ads and Google's own versions of travel, entertainment and shopping sites, are better remains for consumers to judge, and they can always seek alternatives. But even Professor Goldman conceded that if Google pushed its organic results ever further down the page, and managed to put rivals like Yelp and Expedia out of business, consumers might suffer. Competitors "help keep Google honest," he said. "Google might get fat and happy."