Google's Dominance in Online Search Deemed Illegal by US Judge
A US judge has ruled that Google unlawfully maintained its monopoly in online search and advertising, dealing a significant blow to Alphabet, Google’s parent company. This landmark decision could potentially transform business practices for major tech firms.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Google in 2020, accusing it of monopolizing around 90% of the online search market. This case is one among several brought against major tech companies as US antitrust regulators push to enhance industry competition.
This ruling, perceived as a possible existential threat to Google’s dominance, leaves uncertain what penalties Alphabet might face. These could range from hefty fines to potential corporate restructuring, to be determined in a future hearing. The government has requested “structural relief,” potentially suggesting the breakup of the company.
US District Judge Amit Mehta’s 277-page opinion detailed how Google spent billions to ensure it remained the default search engine on various smartphones and browsers. “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” he stated.
Alphabet intends to appeal the decision. The company argued that the ruling acknowledges Google as the best search engine but unjustly restricts its accessibility. “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” the company’s statement read.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland praised the ruling as a “historic win for the American people.” He emphasized that no company, regardless of its size or influence, is above the law and pledged the DOJ’s continued enforcement of antitrust regulations.
Federal regulators have ongoing lawsuits against other tech giants like Meta (owner of Facebook), Amazon, and Apple, accusing them of maintaining illegal monopolies.
The recent ruling followed a 10-week trial in Washington, DC, where prosecutors highlighted Google’s annual expenditure of over $10 billion to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others to secure its default search engine status across various platforms. This investment ensured a continuous stream of user data, fortifying Google’s market grip and stifling competition.
Department of Justice lawyer Kenneth Dintzer pointed to Google’s significant financial commitments as proof of the importance of default status. “The best testimony for that, for the importance of defaults, is Google’s cheque book,” he said during the trial.
Google’s search engine generates billions in revenue, largely due to advertising on its results pages. Google’s legal defense claimed that user preference for its search engine is driven by its superior utility, not unfair practices. “Google is winning because it’s better,” argued Google’s lawyer John Schmidtlein.
Schmidtlein also contended that Google faces substantial competition from general search engines like Microsoft’s Bing and specialized sites and apps for specific searches such as restaurants and flights.
Judge Mehta’s ruling emphasized the critical value of being the default search engine, noting that new competitors would need to offer billions in revenue share to challenge Google’s position.
Google faces another trial in September over its advertising technology practices. In Europe, the company has already been fined billions in similar monopoly cases.
