Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.) | Report on Risks Related to Anticompetitive Practices at Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.)

Status
12.39% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
10
Resolution details
Company ticker
GOOGL
Lead filer
CtW Investment Group
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Other
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders of Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”) ask the board of directors to report to shareholders on how it oversees risks related to anticompetitive practices, including whether the full board or board committee has oversight responsibility, whether and how consideration of such risks is incorporated into board deliberations regarding strategy, and the board’s role in Alphabet’s public policy activities related to such risks. The report should be prepared at reasonable expense and should omit confidential or proprietary information.
Supporting statement
The anticompetitive practices of big tech companies, including Alphabet subsidiary Google, are receiving increasing scrutiny from the public, regulators and enforcers. Criticism of Google has focused on its use of its monopoly over internet search and its access to user data to eliminate competitors not only in search but also in adjacent areas such as online shopping.1 A September 2020 survey found that 58% of Americans are not “confident they are getting objective and unbiased search results when using an online platform to shop or search;” 85% are very or somewhat concerned about the amount of data online platforms store about them.2



The House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee began investigating competition in digital markets in 2019, focusing on Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. The Subcommittee reviewed over a million documents and held seven hearings, including one at which Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified. The Subcommittee’s staff report was scathing: It found that companies’ control over key distribution channels allows them to eliminate competition and “pick winners and losers throughout our economy,” inhibiting innovation and reducing consumer choices. The report found that Google leveraged its search monopoly to “boost Google’s own inferior vertical offerings” and concluded that “Google increasingly functions as an ecosystem of interlocking monopolies.”3



In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and 11 state attorneys general sued Google, alleging that the company maintained monopolies in “general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising” through anticompetitive exclusionary agreements with device makers, carriers and browser developers to make Google the default search engine and prohibit dealing with Google’s competitors. Attorneys general that did not join the DOJ’s suit are also investigating Google.4 In 2019, the European Union fined Google $1.7 billion for “abusive practices in online advertising.”5



Backlash against anticompetitive practices can increase pressure for new regulation. Sixty percent of Americans favor more regulation of online platforms.6 The European Union is considering adopting new regulations and/or a “new competition tool” to deal with structural competition problems not effectively addressed through current rules.7 The Antitrust Subcommittee report recommended a slew of changes aimed at ending the monopolies enjoyed by Google and other platforms.8



Given the widespread debate and rapidly changing environment, we believe that robust board oversight would improve Alphabet’s management of risks related to anticompetitive practices and that shareholders would benefit from more information about the board’s role.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Anima Sgr For
VidaCaixa For
Universities Superannuation Scheme - USS For USS would support additional information on the Company's anticompetitive practice policies.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.