Google is officially a monopoly: Company loses massive DOJ antitrust trial over search engine agreements

Daniel Sims

Posts: 1,533   +46
Staff
What just happened? The US Department of Justice's nearly year-long case against Google over its dominance in the search engine market has reached a dramatic end. The case could drastically alter how numerous devices and web browsers choose their default search engines, though the full extent of the impending effects remains unclear.

A US judge has ruled that Google's massive payments to various tech companies in exchange for favoring its search engine constitute an illegal monopoly. The company was determined to have exploited its market dominance to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.

The scale of Google's payments to maintain exclusivity agreements emerged after the Department of Justice opened its case against the company last September. Google paid companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla a share of advertising revenue from its search engine to ensure that it remained the default on Apple devices, Android phones, and numerous web browsers. In 2021 alone, the payments exceeded $21 billion.

Most of the amount, around $19 billion, went to Apple in exchange for making iPhones, iPads, and Macs default to Google upon initial setup. Other recipients included Samsung, LG, Motorola, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb.

The judge's opinion claims that the policy made it harder for alternative search engines like Bing or DuckDuckGo to gain a foothold among users. The opinion directly compared Google's behavior to the infamous late 1990s case involving Microsoft's interference in the then-emerging web browser market.

In its defense, Google argued that its search engine is simply the best (though many users might disagree these days). Moreover, users can switch to different default search engines.

Statements from early in the trial also revealed that Apple felt it had no viable alternative, as Microsoft's Bing – the next-largest search engine – controlled less than 10 percent of the market. Apple briefly considered acquiring Bing but ultimately used the prospect of the deal to convince Google to increase its payments.

The judge's opinion acknowledged the engineering prowess required for the company to attain its dominance. Still, the judge also noted that Google couldn't satisfactorily explain why the payments were necessary. The company's policy of disabling chat history and deleting logs also hurt its defense by drawing accusations of a coverup from the DOJ.

Google's defeat in the case could have huge implications for how devices and browsers interact with search engines going forward.

Permalink to story:

 
Honestly probably the one time I side with the soulless corporation. It's literally 5 clicks to change default engine, even on Google's own browser. They don't even try to hide the option. All browsers are gonna have a default anyway. Why not let it be Google? Especially considering that, AI bs aside, it does produce very good results.
 
As much as I don't like Google, Google didn't strong arm these companies to take the money. Would you turn away 100 million dollars to make Google's search engine the default? Do a lot of people even care what the default search is? A lot of people have the bare minimum of computer skills and only care about having access to Facebook, X, Instagram, etc. Of course it takes 2 minutes to change the default search in your browser but again it gets back to a lot of people having the bare minimum of computer skills.
 
The issue isn't just about how "easy" it is to change search engines. The issue at hand is that Google leveraged its massive market power (read: $$$$$) to intentionally (read: unfairly in a business context) shape the market in its favor (read: significant advantage), effectively suppressing competition.

This kind of conduct raises serious antitrust concerns, as companies are required to follow rules and laws designed to ensure "fair competition." While businesses can compete by offering better or cheaper products, what Google did goes beyond those "fair business practices." By paying to be the default search engine, Google potentially limits consumer choice and stifles innovation, which are key aspects of competitive harm in antitrust analysis.

Capitalism isn't the wild, wild west; it's a system governed by rules that ensure fair competition and protect consumers from unfair practices.
 
Google would have everyone live their lives through them as they can sell all the data.

I would not be surprised if this is not the final decision by the courts. It will probably take years to work its way through the appeal process. I bet Google will appeal.
Honestly probably the one time I side with the soulless corporation. It's literally 5 clicks to change default engine, even on Google's own browser. They don't even try to hide the option. All browsers are gonna have a default anyway. Why not let it be Google? Especially considering that, AI bs aside, it does produce very good results.
I doubt that's the point.I think the unfairness of it is that Google PAID everyone to make it the default search engine on their devices. As I see it, payment to do so is nothing short of bribery.

Having done so myself, I do agree that it is trivial to change the default search engine to something else.
 
Back