The biggest U.S. challenge so far to the vast power of today’s tech giants is nearing its conclusion.
v. Google — over whether the tech giant broke federal antitrust laws to maintain its online search dominance.
Google insists that consumers use its search engine because it is the best product.
American regulators have also sued Apple, Amazon and Meta in recent years for monopolistic behavior, and Google’s case is likely to set a legal precedent for the group.
“This will be the most important decision and the most important antitrust trial of the 21st century,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who studies antitrust.
The Justice Department says Google’s search engine conducts nearly 90 percent of web searches.
To do so, he may look at Google’s overall share of the market and whether its power over search can be disrupted by competitors.
The legal standards set by that case were referred multiple times throughout the Google trial.
largest U. s. The struggle against the immense power of today’s tech behemoths is almost over.
The Justice Department, state attorneys general, and Google attorneys will present their closing arguments in the lengthy U.S. case on Thursday and Friday. S. et al. V. — about whether the internet behemoth breached antitrust laws at the federal level to preserve its hegemony in online search.
According to the government, Google engaged in unfair competition when it paid Apple and other businesses billions of dollars to handle smartphone and web browser searches automatically. As the greatest product, Google demands that users use its search engine.
Over the next few weeks or months, the U.S. judge presiding over the trial will. S. District Court Amit P. for the District of Columbia. Mehta will issue a decision that may alter Google’s business practices, possibly lead to the company’s dissolution, or clear the tech giant entirely. Many antitrust specialists predict he will come down somewhere in the middle, declaring only a portion of Google’s strategies illegal.
The trial represents the largest challenge to date to the enormous power of the modern tech giants, who have shaped a period in which billions of people worldwide rely on their products for social interaction, information, and commerce. In recent years, American regulators have also filed lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, and Meta for engaging in monopolistic behavior; Google’s case is expected to establish a precedent for the group in court.
Antitrust expert Rebecca Haw Allensworth of Vanderbilt Law School predicted that this ruling and the ensuing trial would be the most significant of the twenty-first century. The fact that this is the first significant monopolization case against the major tech platforms to go to trial makes it significant. “.
The Justice Department would not provide a statement. Google referred to a previous declaration made by one of its executives, stating that the trial’s evidence verified that individuals “have many choices when searching for information online, and they use Google because it’s helpful.”. “.
At the heart of the case is Google’s dominance in online search, which generates billions in profits annually. Nearly 90% of online searches, according to the Justice Department, are made using Google’s search engine.
According to evidence presented at the trial, the company spent $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to become the default search engine on browsers like Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox, meaning it is chosen for users right out of the box. According to The New York Times, Apple had a stake worth roughly $18 billion.
“Even though I’m excited about A’s new angle. I. I’m very concerned that the vicious cycle I’m in might become even more vicious,” Mr. Nadella stated in court.
Later in his testimony, Mr. Pichai of Google stated that the company’s products—such as the Chrome web browser, which uses Google as its search engine—have improved the online experience for users.
After the conclusion of the closing arguments, Judge Mehta will have to decide if Google has monopoly power over the two products in question in this case: search engines in general and the advertisements that appear in search results. In order to achieve this, he might examine Google’s market share overall and whether rivals have the potential to challenge its dominance in search.
If Judge Mehta finds that Google has monopoly power, he will next decide whether or not the company violated any laws by agreeing to be the default search engine on web browsers and smartphones in order to maintain its market share.
Legal experts predict that he may render a mixed decision, tossing out parts of the government’s case while finding that some of the contracts and policies brought up during the trial do, in fact, violate the law.
In the end, the judge who rules against Google will have to decide how to stop the illegal activity. For instance, he might tell the company to break its default search engine agreements with Apple and other companies. Google and the government may both have the chance to argue to Judge Mehta during this stage of the trial about the best ways to handle any problems that have been found in the case.
The judge might also look to the European Union, where Google attempted to abide by a previous antitrust ruling by regulators against the company in 2019 by allowing smartphone users to select their default search engine. Many rivals claim it doesn’t work, despite the fact that in theory it gives smaller search companies a better opportunity to compete with Google.
The government may request structural changes to Google’s operations, such as the separation of a division that assists the company in capturing search queries, such as its Chrome browser, although it has not yet disclosed what it would ask for if the judge finds in its favor. Experts stated that would be a more unexpected choice.
“I don’t believe D.O is likely. I. J. Bill Baer, a former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, stated that they would like to see some sort of breakup here. It’s more likely that Google’s actions in the future will be subject to limitations of some kind. “.
In the late 1990s, the Justice Department mounted a lengthy antitrust challenge to Microsoft’s dominance, saying it had used its power over operating systems to lock out some of the earliest web browsers. After reaching a settlement with the government, the company promised to grant computer manufacturers greater freedom to include non-Microsoft software. Throughout the Google trial, references were made to the legal standards established by that particular case.
