 Good afternoon, and welcome again to the Commission's press room today, 18th of July, 2018. It's our pleasure to have with us Commissioner Marques Veccia, who will present, make a statement on an antitrust decision. The Commission will make this statement, and then we'll move on to our traditional Q&A session. Without further ado, Commissioner. Well, thank you. Today, the Commission has decided to find Google 4.34 billion euros for breaching EU antitrust rules. Google has engaged in illegal practices to cement its dominant market position in internet search. It must put an effective end to this contact within 90 days or face penalty payments. Google's search engine is its flagship product. You fine? Okay. Every year, Google generates more than 95 billion US dollars from AdWords, such as their own shown and clicked on by users of Google search. And much of this revenue is thanks to the rise of smart mobile devices, namely smartphones and tablets. Today, mobile internet makes more than half of global internet traffic. It has changed the lives for millions of Europeans. No matter if we're waiting for the metro or the bus, if we're in a meeting room, if we're dining with friends, more and more our hands reach for our smartphones and tablets to find the information that we're looking for. Our case is about three types of restrictions that Google has imposed on mobile device manufacturers and network operators to ensure that traffic goes to Google search. First, Google has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on devices running on the Android mobile operating system. Manufacturers have to do this if they wanted to be able to sell devices with the Google App Store. Second, Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was pre-installed on such devices. Third, Google has obstructed the development of competing mobile operating systems. These could have provided a platform for rival search engines to gain traffic. In this way, Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine. These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules. I would like now to tell you a bit more about four aspects of our case. First, why Google has implemented these practices. Second, what practices Google implemented exactly. Third, why these practices are illegal under EU antitrust rules. And finally, how our decision today will affect Google, consumers and the marketplace. So first, what was Google's strategy? Google understood early on the shift from desktop to mobile search. It started in the mid-2000s and it would be a fundamental change for search Indian businesses. And of course it realized that this was both an opportunity and a risk. So Google developed a strategy to anticipate the changes of the shift. This strategy was built on the mobile operating system, Android. As Google said in one of its internal documents at the time, and I quote, Android is by far the greatest opportunity for search monetization in mobile over the next years and is very strategic to Google, end quote. Google bought the original developer of the Android operating system in 2005 and it has continued to develop Android ever since. It has been very successful. Today, around 80% of smart devices in Europe and worldwide run on Android. This is more than 2.2 billion devices in total. Each time Google releases a new version of Android, it publishes the source code online. This in principle allows anyone to access and modify the code to create other versions of Android, so-called Android forks. At the same time, this openly accessible Android source code only covers basic functions on mobile devices. It does not include popular Google apps like the Google Play Store, which enables users to download more than 3.3 million different apps. If manufacturers want to sell Android devices that have popular Google apps, they need to agree to Google's terms and to sign on the dotted line. This includes requirements not to modify the Android source code without Google's consent. Through this requirement in practice, Android is locked down in a Google-controlled ecosystem. So what are the legal practices that Google put in place? Our case is about three specific types of restrictions, three specific restrictions that Google has imposed on manufacturers and mobile network operators. The first practice ensures that Android device manufacturers pre-install the Google search app and the Google Chrome browser on the devices that they sell. Search and browser app are the most important gateways to reach search engines on mobile devices. Manufacturers had to pre-install the Google search and the Chrome app if they wanted to sell devices that offers users a key feature, namely the possibility to download other apps via the Google Play Store. As part of our investigation, device manufacturers confirmed that users consider Google's Play Store a must have app on Android devices. So the right to pre-install the Play Store on their device is a very strong incentive for them to agree to Google's demands, especially because it's not possible for users to download the Play Store themselves. Second, Google also wanted Google search to be the only pre-installed search engine on Android devices. So Google gave some of the largest device manufacturers a share of the pie of Google search revenue, but only on a condition of exclusive status. It also entered into such arrangement with certain mobile network operators, which can also determine which apps are installed on the devices that they sell to consumers. At its peak, this practice covered more than 80% of Android devices sold in Europe. Google stopped this practice after the commission started to look into it. Our investigation has shown that for search apps and mobile browsers, pre-installation on devices is an advantage that cannot be matched in any way, the figures they speak for themselves. In 2016, more than 95% of all search queries on Android devices were made via Google search. These devices had Google search and Google Chrome pre-installed. On Windows, mobile systems or their devices, on the other hand, while Google search engine was not pre-installed as a result, less than 25% of all search queries were made via Google search. And more than 75% of the queries, well, they happened on Bing, which is the pre-installed search engine on Windows mobile devices. There is a saying that you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Well, evidence shows that when it comes to search apps and mobile browsers, the vast majority of users simply take what comes with their device and do not download competing apps. In fact, these apps are not even for free since users pay with their data. Or to slightly paraphrase what also economist Milton Friedman has said, there ain't no such thing as a free search. The third practice Google has put in place, as already mentioned, prevents device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google. If manufacturers produced even a single device based on an Android fork, they use the right, they lose the right to sell any device with Google Play Store or the Google search app. And this is how Google restricts the opportunity and incentive for others to develop Android forks in a way that is not open to all. At the same time, this reduced the opportunity for rival search engines and other to launch apps and services on devices running on Android forks. And this was not just a remote possibility from theory books. In 2012 and 2013, Amazon tried to license to device manufacturers its Android fork called Fire OS. It wanted to cooperate with manufacturers to increase its chances of commercial success. And manufacturers were interested. But due to Google's restrictions, manufacturers could not launch Fire OS on even a single device. They would have lost the right to sell any Android phone with key Google apps. Nowadays, very few devices run with Fire OS, namely only those manufactured by Amazon themselves. And this is not a proportionate outcome. Google is entitled to set technical requirements to ensure that functionality and apps within its own Android ecosystem runs smoothly. But these technical requirements cannot serve as a smoke screen to prevent the development of competing Android's ecosystems. Google cannot have its cake and eat it. So why are these practices illegal under EU rules? In Europe, well, of course we congratulate all companies for success. The success that they achieve through innovation, developing products that consumers value. And that is why as such dominance is not a problem under EU antitrust rules. But with market dominance comes a responsibility. And that's because when one company dominates the marketplace, obviously competition is weakened. So EU antitrust rules puts a special responsibility on dominant companies. They must not deny other companies the chance to compete against them on the merits. Of course, because that would be to the detriment of further innovation and therefore harm European consumers. Through its control over Android, Google is dominant in the market for mobile operating systems which are available to license to other manufacturers. And Google has been dominant in this market since 2011. Our most recent figures show that it holds a market share of more than 95%. The second biggest player in this market, Windows Mobile, was very small in comparison. It had a market share of less than 5% before exiting the market last year. Other mobile operating systems like those of Apple and BlackBerry, they are not available for license. They do not directly compete with Android at the level of device manufacturers. Of course, Android phones, they compete with Apple and BlackBerry phones for end consumers. But our investigation shown that that does not sufficiently constrain Google's power vis-a-vis device manufacturers and network operators. Our decision also concludes that Google is dominant in two other markets. Namely, the App Store for the Android Mobile operating system and in general internet search. As regards App Stores, Google Play Store accounts for more than 90% of app downloads on Android devices. As regards general internet search, the Google search engine holds very high market shares of over 90% in most European countries. And that we all already showed in the Google shopping decision last year. This means that Google must comply with EU antitrust rules for dominant companies. And the decision today concludes that the restrictions Google imposed on manufacturers and network operators using Android have breached these rules since 2011. First, that's because Google's practices have denied rival search engines the possibility to compete on the merits. They made sure that Google search engine is pre-installed on practically all Android devices, which is an advantage that cannot be matched. And by making payments to major manufacturers and network operators on condition that no other search app or search engine was pre-installed. Well, then rivals were excluded from this opportunity. In this way, Google also denied rivals access to valuable data from increased user traffic, which in turn could have allowed rivals to improve their products. Furthermore, Google's practices also harmed competition and further innovation in the wider mobile space beyond just internet search. And that's because they prevented other mobile browsers from competing effectively with the pre-installed Google Chrome browser. Finally, they obstructed the development of Android Forks. This could have provided a platform for rival search engines as well as other app developers to thrive. So finally, the consequences of this decision. The fine of 4.34 billion euros reflects the seriousness and the sustained nature of Google's violation of EU antitrust rules. The decision requires Google to bring its illegal conduct to an end within 90 days in an effective manner. At a minimum, our decision requires Google to stop and not to re-engage in the three types of restrictions that I have described. In other words, our decision stops Google from controlling which search and browser apps manufacturers can pre-install on Android devices or which Android operating system they can adopt. But it is Google's sole responsibility to make sure that it changes its conduct in a way that brings the infringement to an effective end. We will monitor this very closely. If Google fails to comply with our decision, it would be subject to penalty payments. The penalty would be up to 5% of the average daily turnover of alphabet Google's parent for each day of non-compliance. We would have to establish this in a separate commission decision which the penalty would be backdated when the non-compliance started. So our decision requires Google to change the way it operates and face the consequences of its action. About a year ago, I was here in the press room to tell you about a separate, another separate decision concerning Google. The commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros for abusing its dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to its own shopping comparison service. We have not yet taken a position on whether Google has complied with the decision and since we haven't done so, this remains very much an open question. Furthermore, the commission also continues to investigate Google's business practices concerning other vertical search services and AdSense. I cannot preclude and pre-judge the outcome of these ongoing investigations which continue to be a top priority for us. So to conclude, what our ongoing work and today's decision have in common is the principle that in Europe companies must compete on the merits. Any company is welcome to do business in our single market. But they need to comply. They need to play by EU antitrust rules. And these rules are set in place for a very simple reason, to protect European consumers and effective competition. And this matters, especially in digital markets. Technology companies have enormous potential of doing us good. But establishing people's trust that technology serves us and not the other way round is more important than ever. Competition enforcement can make a difference here. It can give people the confidence that technology companies play fair and do not close off markets to competition. Otherwise, they will be sanctioned as Google was today. But we also need effective regulation, including data protection rules that ensure our data is not being misused and rules that make sure that online platforms operate in a transparent way. And that is why I work hand in hand with my colleagues Andrew Sandsip, Maria Gabriel and Vera Jurova to build the trust we need to make sure that digital markets truly serve European consumers. Thank you. Many thanks, Commissioner Vestia. We'll now proceed to your questions. I would just like to remind you that we have experts in the room and unlike me, they can give you a hand in addressing any difficult technical questions afterwards. So if you could start with your questions relating to the topic at hand. And I would also like to remind you to state your name and the media you work for. And I will start with Jorge, who was the first to ask it and move to Christian. Thank you, Ricardo. Jorge Valero, you're active. Two quick questions. The first one, even if the Trump administration is not as close to Obama administration to Silicon Valley, are you afraid that this decision could affect the meeting next week between President Juncker and President Trump? And a second question, you have imposed two record fines on a company which motto was don't be able. So my question is whether you think that the Googles will apologize to companies, SMEs, and consumers. Well, as I know my US colleagues, they want fair competition just as well as we do. And this was also, as been the discussion around the first Google case, that there is a respect that we do our job. Because we are here, we have this very simple mission to make sure that companies play by the rule book to serve consumers for the market to serve consumers. And this is also my impression that this is what they want in the US. On the second question, well, what we want is for Google to change its behavior. This is an illegal behavior, we want this to stop. In an effective manner. And this is what we are asking because this is not a moral endeavor. This is a market, there are rules in this market. And just as well as anyone else, Google should play by these rules. Christian. Oui, bonjour Madame Vestaguer, en français s'il vous plaît, Christian Spillman de l'AFP. Ma question, je crois que c'est l'amende la plus importante jamais infligée à une société justement en position dominante et abus. Ma question est simple. Où va aller l'argent? Est-ce que cet argent va aller dans le budget de l'Union européenne et favoriser la recherche et le développement, permettre l'émergence de nouveaux moteurs de recherche? Ou sinon, va-t-il aller dans les Etats membres ou prorata de leur participation au PIB? Ma deuxième question, vous avez dit qu'il y a un an, vous avez sanctionné pour 2,2 milliards 42. Est-ce qu'ils ont payé ces 2 milliards 42? Est-ce qu'on a une chance de voir les 4 milliards d'amendes aujourd'hui infligées payées avant la fin de votre mandat et avant la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne? Merci. On, on, the question of the first fine. The first fine Google has put up a bank guarantee, so effectively the fine has been paid. It is so with every fine that they have to be paid. We cannot sort of, of course, use the money before an appeal is over. This means that a fine goes into a closed account and it stays there till the final judgment of the court and then it's returned to member states. And we return it using the same key as the contribution to the European budget. And I think this is very important because you can impose a fine if someone has done something wrong. You cannot impose a fine because you need the money. That would be wrong in itself. And this is why we have this mechanism and this of course means that it will take quite some time if they appeal and if we win in court and I can assure you we have done our best to make that possible then eventually the money will come back to member states to serve European citizens. Louis and then we'll work to the right, yeah. Commissioner, good afternoon, Lewis Crofts, Emlex. Google uses these restrictions allegedly to make money. If they can't put these restrictions in place anymore there is the prospects of them charging for licenses for Android. Are you worried about this? Do you think this could be a problem that the price of a handset could go up because of your decision? And secondly, listen to what you're saying about downloading apps. And your own merger decisions have said that people go online, people go to their play store and they download apps, it's really easy. I'm sure you've done it, everyone in this room has done it. Have you changed your mind in so far as you're saying now that people don't actually do it or they can't do it? Well, first on the question of how to monetize an investment. Obviously, this is not a judgment over any business model because they are different business models out there and this is not a judgment over that. As far as we can see, there is still possibilities to monetize the Android operating system. If you look at, for instance, the play store where Android based apps are being found and sold the revenue made from that is quite substantial. So I think there's still a possibility for Google to recoup the investment made in developing the Android operating system. Second, when it comes to downloading apps there are a number of differences between apps. If you look at these very crucial ones like, for instance, a set the play store you cannot download that yourself. That's the first thing. Second, when it comes to sort of these very essential apps that we all use, like Search, like the browser. It is very, very rare that it happens that users do download a competing app. We know for Search, I think it is over a couple of years on Android devices only 1% of users, 1% of users downloaded a competing search app and only 10% of users downloaded a competing browser. I think this is very different for games and whatever but for the essential apps, once you have it you have this out of the box experience, it's working. Well, very few seems to be curious enough to go look for another search app or browser. And Natalia Drizniak, Bloomberg News. You mentioned that Google collects a lot of data that's valuable to Google Search. Did the commission examine a possible strategy to block rivals with data collection? And do you see this as harmful? Well, I wouldn't put it that way that since rivals couldn't find a place on an Android phone as sets, well, if the search app is already installed and I said very, very few people 1% would find another search app, well, you weren't in this space and mobile search traffic has, you know, gained an enormous importance over the last 10 years from almost nothing to be half of internet search traffic. So you never really got there if you were a competing search engine. And that makes it very difficult to develop the quality of your search engine because data is one of the prime resources to be able to do that. To the right, and then we'll come back, Kushita. Hello, Commissioner, Kushita Vasanth from PAR. You mentioned that the commission will be monitoring Google's actions after this decision. How are you going to go about measuring whether this has an impact or any remedy that the institute is going to have an impact? And the second question is, I understand your point that Google needs to stop its behavior, but this is quite entrenched and the market is quite predicated. So if there is no change in consumer choice and as you yourself said that users normally would not download competing apps, would this intervention have been futile? Have you considered that and how does one go about fixing that? Thank you. Well, first, these three restrictions, they are contractual restrictions. So the first thing, of course, is to take away contractual restrictions and to see if that is an effective manner to stop what has been done. And this is for Google. Is there so responsibility to figure that out? Second, the thing is that now mobile operators and device manufacturers, they are free to choose. If someone develops a new fantastic Android fork, they can put it on a device and sell it with this new version. Just as well as they can choose to put on another search app or another browser. So you have more choice as an end consumer as to what kind of operating system and what kind of out-of-the-box experience would you like to have. So here, obviously, freeing up the choice when it comes to upstream manufacturers, mobile operators, then enables more choice for end consumers. Adam Satriana with the New York Times. And first, we'll come to you afterwards. Capital Forum. Commissioner, to come back to the real impact on consumers in the market here, there are probably about 450 million people walking around in the EU at the moment with an existing Android phone, perhaps as many as 500 million. And you've said today that Google has to stop doing what it's been doing that's illegal. But how do you fix things for those people who already have an Android phone? It's all very well to say that new Android phones, which are going to be coming on the market, won't be subject to these illegal contract provisions. But I'm thinking in particular of what happened for one of the complainants in this case, Yandex, which is a competing Russian search engine and the Russian competition authority came out a couple of years ago and fined Google for similar restrictive Android practices and last year reached a settlement with Google. One of the things that it asked Google to do was to send a push notification to all existing users... Just take another mic. All existing users of Android phones to give them a notification that they could choose something different by way of a search engine or a search app. Is that something you've considered or you've said Google has to decide what to do? Is that something you will expect them to do? Well, this is a very sort of classical seasoned decision. So we'll say it has to put a stop to its behavior and it has to bring the infringement to an effective end. And yes, then it is for Google to figure out how to lift this responsibility. It's for them to do this. And obviously, since this is a case where there is a fine imposed, it is a fine to reflect that this is a past behavior and it has to change for the future. Google may make that kind of choices, as you referred to, on that we have taken no position. Next slide. Yes. Irene Kostaki from New Europe. The fine is very large and somebody could say that this gives it a political dimension. Do you feel that there might be backlash on the European companies operating in the U.S. by the administration? Well, I also find that it's a large sum of money. But if you look at sort of the percentage of turnover as we do, when we look at the level of fine, it is in line with what we usually find. So we are not in that respect out of the ordinary. We're in the same sort of level as we usually are. Maybe it's slightly sort of on the high side, but it's definitely not sort of spectacular in that effect. Adam. Thank you. Adam Satriana with The New York Times. Given the pattern of behavior that you've outlined in this case and in others over the past few years, do you think that Google should be broken up with that improved competition? And secondly, does the time it takes to conclude these cases limit their impact and that by the time a decision has been reached, essentially the market has moved on? Actually, I don't know. I don't know if it would serve a purpose of more competition to have Google broken up. I think what will serve competition is for more players to have a real go to be able to reach consumers so that we can use our choice to find what suits us the best. Test out new search engines, new browsers, have maybe a phone that works in a slightly different way. Not that I think that many people, at least I would have sort of very limited knowledge to see if that exactly Android 4 would be better than the previous one, but maybe the totality of the phone and which it was presented, that would work. To allow others to compete on the merits to show consumers what can we do? What have we invented? This is where we put our efforts. This is the innovation that we want to prevent for you. This, I think, would enable competition. This case was started in 2015. The complaints have been coming in in the years before, but the case started in 2015, so it's a three-year period of time that has elapsed. The one thing that makes it... I think a thing that makes it difficult for us to speed up our casework even more is that we never compromise on due process. Access to file, letters of facts, that you can state how you see things, that you can produce evidence that goes counter to what we have. On that, we can never compromise. And this, of course, puts a limit as to how fast cases can be dealt with. That being said, it's a top priority to work as fast as possible, which is, of course, why we also invest in IT tools for our investigation, for our files, for access to file to enable the casework to move on as speedily as possible. On the left-hand side, yes, please. Ruth Bershens, Hans-Blatt, Germany. Last year, it was 2.42. This year, it's 4.34, I think. Birjan, perhaps, could you please explain how exactly you found this specific amount of fine? We have guidelines to help us calculate the fine. So it is the duration of the infringement and how serious it was, and then it is based on the turnover of the company. And then we put that into our matrix and turn the handle, and then, poof, comes out a number. I'll go to Bruno now. Oh, sorry, follow-up. Why, this time, it's the double of the last time, so there must be a reason for that. Well, I said this is an infringement that has been going on since 2011. It's a very serious infringement, the three different parts of the infringement, and the turnover has developed a lot over these years. So using our standard methods, the fine is simply bigger because the effect of the infringement is bigger, and it's exactly a reflection of that and that it is, it's a very serious infringement. It's a very serious illegal behaviour. Thank you. And now to Bruno, who's been waiting for a bit. Go ahead. Bruno Woodfield, Times of London. The decision, of course, takes place in a political context, and the political context is a worsening trade relationship between the European Union and the United States, not just tariffs, but a broader discussion. Jean-Claude Juncker's there. Next week, how would you explain that this decision isn't really part of that context? And how would you answer President Trump who told Mr. Juncker in Canada at the G7 that I won't attempt the accent? Your tax lady, she really hates the US. Well, I've done my own fact-checking on the first part of that sentence. I do work with tax and I am a woman, so this is 100% correct. This is not correct for the latter part of the sentence, though, because I very much like the US, and I think that would also be what you think, because I'm from Denmark, and that tends to be what we do. We like the US. The culture, the people, our friends traveling. But the fact is that this has nothing to do with how I feel. Nothing whatsoever. Just as well as enforcing competition law, well, we do it in the world, but we don't do it in the political context, because then there would never, ever be a right timing. The mission is very simple. We have to protect consumers and competition to make sure that consumers get the best of fair competition. Choice, innovation, best possible prices. This is what we do. It has been done before. We will continue to do it, no matter the political context. Thank you. Yoon Chi? Hi, Commissioner. Yoon Chi from Reuters. During your investigation, have you had any feedback from the Android makers such as Samsung, Huawei and Sony? And what's your backup plan if, let's say, after a year or two, Android hasn't lost any market share at all, because people prefer Google's products? Thank you. Well, as I said, we have been in contact with mobile device manufacturers. This is why we know that the Google Play Store is a much, must carry app. And it seems obvious, but, of course, we have also confirmed that. So, yes, we have had a lot of back and forth to make sure that we get the evidence right. And now it is for Google. It is Google's sole responsibility to live up to the decision to bring this infringement to an end in an effective manner. And then, of course, what will happen, we will see. And I'm absolutely certain that you and colleagues will ask me about it in a year from now what has changed in the marketplace. Thank you. David Carretta? Thank you, David Carretta, Radio Radicala, Italian Radio. If I can come back to the breakup issue of Google, would you exclude to take such a decision since at the end of the day, we are always talking about Google Search and the business model of Google, the fact that Search is not for free, but it has a cost and so on. Thank you. Well, we were just talking about how long it takes to do our investigation, so it would definitely not be for this mandate. And even if I was lucky enough to get the next one, maybe not in that one either. The thing is, I think we should have competition, and I don't think that there are any silver bullets in breaking up a company to do that. And here we have a decision which is very clear, which will allow mobile device producers to have a choice that will allow us as consumers to have a choice as well. That's what competition is about, and I think that is much more important than a discussion of whether or not breaking up a company would do that. And at the same time, I think there is a very important discussion which is to discuss how to pass the legislation that my colleagues have tabled, the legislation that will assure that you have transparency and fairness in the business-to-platform relationship, so that if you're a business and you find that, oh, my traffic has stopped, that you know why it happened, when it happened, and what to do to get your traffic back, that we get this in place, and that we get a full implementation, that it's in the real world that we feel protected in our privacy. These, I find, is sort of first things first, because this will change the marketplace and it will change the way we are protected, as consumers, but also as businesses. Mark? Good afternoon, Mark. Because you actually stressed the fact that this is the largest fine ever given in an antitrust case, do you consider then also this as the biggest abuse of a dominant market position? Well, I also love all my children the same way. I don't think it's fair to ask me to choose, because the fine reflects the length and the seriousness and the size of the business, but sometimes you have antitrust offences, illegal behavior that very specifically harms some people very, very much. So I don't think it's fair to ask me to choose. Matthew? Good afternoon, Commissioner Matthew Newman from MLX. I certainly understand that the point of the decision is to help consumers to promote innovation and all that, but I'm just wondering about some of the practical consequences of this. Do you expect that there really might be more competition for an operating system? Do you envision a new operating system coming out, a new kind of fork that no one has ever heard of that's fabulous that everyone will want? Because it seems that right now we have Google, Android, and Apple, and in your decision it doesn't look like those are two systems in the same market. One is licensable and the other one is open source, so you put them in two different boxes. So what do you envision? What is your kind of the end game for the operating systems? Well, first of all, I don't envision an end game. That may be a lack of imagination, but I still think that devices one way or another would need an operating system. How they will develop into the future, that remains to be seen. But as I said, it's not just pure theory. Amazon developed a fork. They would very much like manufacturers to use that fork in order to have competition in this field. It was not possible because of the Google illegal restrictions. So it's not just theory that this happens. And from what I have heard from people, organizations, other active in the marketplace, the fact that sort of the basics of the Android operating system is open source is one of the things that are very much appreciated. Because it enhances the quality because more eyes are looking into it, more people are using their resources and skills and innovative ideas on that. So I will not at all preclude that this can happen. I don't know if it's going to happen, but what I see is a marketplace where people think, it's open source, this is great, because then we can get our fingers in the dough. Very patient Natalia, go ahead. Natalia Josiek, Bloomberg News again. You mentioned earlier that Google might be able to monetize Android through Google Play. So I'm wondering, is this the only solution to end the anti-competitive behavior for Google, either to give it all its services away for free or to charge for its mobile services somehow? And are you not concerned if it's the latter that it could raise prices on smartphones for consumers? Well, I have made no suggestions as to how Google should solve this. It's just to say that this decision doesn't say that this has to happen. I think a number of different choices can be made by Google, and it is for Google to make these choices. What we see in general is that competition makes prices come down, gives you better choices. So you can have a theory that prices will come up. It is as likely that prices will come down because of more competition. The thing is now it's open. There can be competition as to how this should work. And that's the very point of the decision. And now that we've started the second round, back on the left-hand side, yeah? It seems that only the European competition authorities, the European Commission is finding Google now for the second time, but the American and the Canadian competition authorities don't behave like that. What's your explanation for this difference? Is it only due to a more severe or more strict European competition law, or what is the reason for that? I think it's better you ask them than have me guessing. Because I can say why we do as we do. In this case, as in the Google Shopping case, we had complainants, we looked into it. We found that there were reasons to open investigation. We found reasons and evidence, not only to send a statement of addiction, but also to take a decision. And these are the evidence that we have found. And maybe this is our limited capacity, but we use our capacity to the benefit of European consumers instead of speculating about why other people do or do not with their capacity. Thank you. Yes, please. Yes, Martin, with Julein's post. I think I got you said that you don't care much about the political context in which this decision has been taken. But maybe you could answer if you are not in any way afraid about the political backlash to the decision, no matter the context you have taken it in. What people more insightful than me say about the world is that it becomes more and more unpredictable. If that is the case, then I find it's a good thing to do predictable things, sort of to put something in the other end of the scale. And the predictable thing is that if you breach European antitrust rules, if you do something illegal and we find out and we can prove it, there will be a penalty you have to stop this behavior. And there are no surprises here. It has been done before and it will be done again. And that, I think, is a good thing to have something predictable in a world that seems different than it was some time ago. Kushita, then I'll come to David. Hi, Commissioner Kushita from PAR. Just to follow up on the commission's monitoring process on Google's compliance and that they are going, they have an obligation to keep you informed. Is this going to be on similar lines as the shopping case in which you engage with external consultants and there has to be a report every three months? In this case, no, we are not taking on board external experts. We don't find that it is needed with the nature of this case and it will be the same method that there has to be compliance reports with frequent intervals, yes. David? David Price, your democracy. This case is a contractual legal case. With Google there are a number of cases being introduced in the United States about the Google algorithm which is the complainants say cause political bias and therefore they are losing revenue on a lot of independent news sources for example using revenue because of the bias on the algorithm. Are you looking into this broader sort of competitive restriction which is more political than financial in one case but does have very strong financial ramifications? We don't have a case like this. We have had questions and people coming to us sort of in the zone between copyright issues and competition issues. To discuss, this is a copyright issue but this is mostly by people who are being seen via Google News. It's not by people who are not being seen and feel that they ought to be seen. So we don't have complaints from people saying that we are being sorted out and we cannot be found in the news circle. Of course the Google Shopping case is about rivals to the Shopping Comparison Service being demoted and Google promoting themselves but this is still I think very sort of commercial issue much more than it is an issue of free speech or the free press and our democracy as such. Thank you. Do I see any further questions for the commissioner on this or any other topic? If not, all that remains for me is to thank the commissioner for the press conference. Thank you, commissioner. And to remind you that if you stay on your seat we'll just set up here and have the technical experts at hand to deal with any further points that you may want to discuss about today's decision. So thank you and have a good afternoon.