Whether competition law extends to this level currently is being tested at the European Commission, which has recently filed a formal antitrust complaint against Google.51 At issue in the case is how Google interoperates with sites that offer competing shopping services. Although Google will display data from comparison shopping tools that compete with its own services, competitors claim that Google tries to drive visitors to its own services. If the European Commission prevails in its case against Google, it will highlight the importance of paying attention to all of the interop layers, not just the technological layer. Similarly, the European Commission has recently launched an antitrust competition inquiry into the e-commerce sector of the European Union. It is exploring “barriers to accessing goods and services online across borders.”52 Antitrust interventions are effective in establishing interoperability in specific areas. However, if they wind their way slowly to a resolution, they run the risk of lagging behind market development and becoming irrelevant. Further, governments typically incur significant costs to monitor and enforce the competition laws. On the positive side, however, the fact-based and narrowly tailored nature of antitrust interventions generally ensures the flexibility of the approach with regard to the market, technological, and legal environment in which it is applied.4.5.2.6 Supplementing strategies In addition to the approaches outlined in this section, governments and regulators also have at their disposal “supplementing strategies.” These include funding research initiatives aimed at establishing higher levels of interoperability, facilitating standards-setting processes, and establishing public-private partnerships that foster interoperability. Although governments’ roles may be naturally oriented toward top-down action, it is important for them to bear in mind the variety of bottom-up approaches in which they can participate.53 4.5.3 Benchmarks for Interop Each of the approaches identified in Section 4.5.2 (both private-sector and regulatory approaches) has its own strengths and weaknesses or, in more economic terms, costs and benefits. One of the trickiest tasks is to evaluate them from a policy-oriented perspective and in an unbiased and balanced manner. On an abstract level, the following three benchmarks may be helpful starting places for evaluation. 4.5.3.1 Effectiveness Each approach described above is likely to result in different levels of interoperability and can be expected to play a distinct role in maintaining an interoperable ecosystem. The suggested effectiveness criterion evaluates the respective contributions and compares the available approaches that are considered in a given situation. Understanding interoperability as a means and not an end in itself, the evaluation of an approach’s effectiveness should also consider to what degree the respective strategy tends to enhance competition in the market, foster innovation, or contribute to other policy goals such as consumer autonomy and choice. To be effective, a solution must also provide interoperability over time, not just in the immediate circumstances.4.5.3.2 Efficiency In several instances, achieving and maintaining a certain level of interoperability comes with costs. The efficiency criterion seeks to measure the level of costs imposed on an affected player—companies, but also users and governments, among other stakeholders—for a given degree of interoperability and compare it with other available means of achieving interoperability. The costs of unintended consequences (some of them addressed in this chapter under the heading “potential risks and drawbacks”) also need to be taken into account.4.5.3.3 Flexibility In order to be successful, a given approach to interoperability needs to be able to take into account important facts about the market. These include the market’s maturity, product and service development, the features of current and future business models, the needs of users, etc. Looking forward, it is particularly important that the approach be responsive to technological development in order to avoid technological lock-in.Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016 115 Chapter 4