Google Is A Monopoly, Long Live Google
Photo: Reuters/Annegret Hilse
By Jonathan Guilford
NEW YORK, NY – Google now shares an ignominy with Microsoft. Judged by the same legal yardstick, Alphabet’s web search colossus is a monopolist just as the software developer was deemed to be in 2001. It might also suffer a similar fate.
Having long ago become a verb synonymous with what it does, Google was found by a U.S. court on August 5 to be illegally wielding its might over the market. The carefully constructed 276-page opinion from Judge Amit Mehta hews closely to established competition law and traditional thinking on the subject. Given how tricky it would be to disentangle the $2 trillion company’s technology, the consequences may be limited.
Regardless of the remedies, which will be determined later, the victory is a significant one for Jonathan Kanter, the US Department of Justice antitrust chief, and his counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan. Both have filed a panoply of lawsuits against tech giants, and the findings in this case will be an important signal to courts presiding over the others, including another one against Google’s ad-tech business.
Microsoft was an integral factor. Mehta turned to that decision, which nixed a breakup while affirming violations of law, as a template. His approach pruned parts of the DOJ’s and fellow state attorneys’ arguments, limiting the determination of just how far Google’s supremacy spreads.
Mehta’s opinion also finesses the uncomfortable finding that Google is the “highest quality search engine.” Resources play a part. Google estimated that Apple would need to spend $20 billion to build a similar product and billions more to operate it. The primary concern, however, is establishing ubiquity. In 2022, Google paid about $20 billion to be the default option for iPhone buyers, according to the ruling.
Even $3 trillion Microsoft has made only limited headway with its Bing search service. It was unable to dislodge Google from the Apple deal, despite offering to share 100% of its revenue.
The question now is what to do about this immovable advantage. Mehta referred to past decisions urging courts to avoid complicated solutions that force judges to be “central planners.”
Keeping things simple would probably mean a limited remedy such as stopping Google from signing exclusivity deals, or a seismic one like a divestiture. The difficulty is that search is the main business in question here, leaving no easy way to extract it. As a result, it will be as hard to contain Google’s clout as it was Microsoft’s.
The case is a bifurcated trial, meaning that the finding of liability will be followed by a process to determine what remedies should be applied. (REUTERS)
