98% of sales on Amazon.com flow through the Buy Box. However, Amazon sometimes decides not to feature any offers for a product and removes the Buy Box from the product page -- a situation known as Buy Box suppression. Suppression may have severe consequences on individual sellers and might affect competition if it disciplines prices across online marketplaces. This paper studies suppression using a new, high-frequency dataset that tracks 17,754 products on Amazon.com at hourly intervals for eight weeks in 2024, along with corresponding offers from 59,301 unique competitors. We open-source both the dataset and collection code. We find that the primary reason for suppression is changes to the offers for a product on Amazon. Lower competitor prices only modestly increase the probability of suppression. Suppression has substantial impacts on sellers: products immediately fall sharply in search, ad placements completely disappear within 12 hours, and sales ranks are 12% worse after 48 hours. In contrast, we find no evidence of impacts on competitor prices in the short run. Our results highlight how Buy Box suppression acts as an important and underexplored mechanism of platform governance.

Keyword advertising on general web search engines is a multi-billion dollar business. Keyword advertising turns contentious, however, when businesses target ads against their competitors' brand names---a practice known as "competitive poaching." To stave off poaching, companies defensively bid on ads for their own brand names. Google, in particular, has faced lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny since it altered its policies in 2004 to allow poaching. In this study, we investigate the sources of advertising revenue earned by Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo by examining ad impressions, clicks, and revenue on navigational and brand searches. Using logs of searches performed by a representative panel of US residents, we estimate that ads on these searches account for 28--36% of Google's search revenue, while Bing earns even more. We also find that the effectiveness of these ads for advertisers varies. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for advertisers and regulators.

Is Google Search a monopoly with gatekeeping power? Regulators from the US, UK, and Europe have argued that it is based on the assumption that Google Search dominates the market for horizontal (a.k.a. “general”) web search. Google disputes this, claiming that competition extends to all vertical (a.k.a. “specialized”) search engines, and that under this market definition it does not have monopoly power. In this study we present the first analysis of Google Search’s market share under vertical segmentation of online search. We leverage observational trace data collected from a panel of US residents that includes their web browsing history and copies of the Google Search Engine Result Pages they were shown.We observe that participants’ search sessions begin at Google greater than 50% of the time in 24 out of 30 vertical market segments (which comprise almost all of our participants’ searches). Our results inform the consequential and ongoing debates about the market power of Google Search and the conceptualization of online markets in general.

The results returned by image search engines have the power to shape peoples' perceptions about social groups. Existing work on image search engines leverages hand-selected queries for occupations like "doctor" and "engineer" to quantify racial and gender bias in search results. We complement this work by analyzing peoples' real-world image search queries and measuring the distributions of perceived gender, skin tone, and age in their results. We collect 54,070 unique image search queries and analyze 1,481 open-ended people queries (i.e. not queries for named entities) from a representative sample of 643 US residents. For each query, we analyze the top 15 results returned on both Google and Bing Images.

The contemporary Google Search Engine Results Page (SERP) supplements classic blue hyperlinks with complex components. These components produce tensions between searchers, 3rd-party websites, and Google itself over clicks and attention. In this study, we examine 12 SERP components from two categories: (1) extracted results (e.g., featured-snippets) and (2) Google Services (e.g., shopping-ads) to determine their effect on peoples’ behavior. We measure behavior with two variables: (1) click- through rate (CTR) to Google’s own domains versus 3rd-party domains and (2) time spent on the SERP. We apply causal inference methods to an ecologically valid trace dataset comprising 477,485 SERPs from 1,756 participants. We find that multiple components substantially increase CTR to Google domains, while others decrease CTR and increase time on the SERP. These findings may inform efforts to regulate the design of powerful intermediary platforms like Google.