Google is a Monopoly Judge Holds, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a recent ruling in the case of United State v. Google (2024) has led to the conclusion that Google is a monopoly. While Google did engage in legitimate business practices to build its empire, it did enjoy certain advantages the court held:

"But Google also has a major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution. Most users access a general search engine through a browser (like Apple's Safari) or a search widget that comes preloaded on a mobile device. Those search access points are preset with a "default" search engine. The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points. Google derives extraordinary volumes of user data from such searches. It then uses that information to improve search quality. Google so values such data that, absent a user-initiated change, it stores 18 months-worth of a user's search history and activity. The distribution agreements benefit Google in another important way. More users mean more advertisers, and more advertisers mean more revenues. As queries on Google have grown, so too has the amount it earns in advertising dollars. In 2014, Google booked nearly $47 billion in advertising revenue. By 2021, that number had increased more than three-fold to over $146 billion. Bing, by comparison, generated only a fraction of that amount—less than $12 billion in 2022. For years, Google has secured default placements through distribution contracts. It has entered into such agreements with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers. These partners agree to install Google as the search engine that is delivered to the user right out of the box at key search access points."

"After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the court holds that (1) there are relevant product markets for general search services and general search text ads; (2) Google has monopoly power in those markets; (3) Google's distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and (4) Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements. Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits. Other determinations favor Google. The court holds that (1) there is a product market for search advertising but that Google lacks monopoly power in that market; (2) there is no product market for general search advertising; and (3) Google is not liable for its actions involving its advertising platform, SA360. The court also declines to sanction Google under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) for its failure to preserve its employees' chat messages."

The case will no doubt be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. If Google ultimately loses, it will open up the avenue for a Trump administration through Congress to break it up. That would be a good thing given the censorship Google has been involved it.

https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/goj-goog-ruling.pdf

https://reclaimthenet.org/federal-judge-declares-tech-giant-a-monopolist

"On Monday, a pivotal ruling from a federal judge declared that Google had breached antitrust regulations in its quest to dominate the online search and advertising sectors. Judge Amit Mehta's decision noted that Google had perpetuated its monopoly through specific strategies that violated section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The lawsuit, which commenced in 2020, later expanded to include multiple states and territories, encapsulating the gravity and scale of the legal scrutiny Google faces. Early in the trial, government attorney Kenneth Dintzer articulated that the proceedings would significantly influence the future of internet governance.

The trial's largely private proceedings sparked criticism from transparency advocates, who accused Google of trying to minimize public oversight and media exposure. Google had successfully argued that opening up the trial fully would risk exposing sensitive trade secrets.

In his detailed ruling, Judge Mehta highlighted that the evidence and testimonies reviewed throughout the trial led to the unequivocal conclusion that Google was engaging in monopolistic practices. "After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," he stated.

The case, marking one of the most significant antitrust judgments in recent decades, was the result of a major legal challenge initiated by the Justice Department. It reflects a broader governmental and international effort to regulate the expansive power of major tech entities.

The proceedings began in September of the previous year and featured a notable break, allowing Judge Mehta time to deliberate before concluding in early May.

Throughout the trial, federal prosecutors presented their case that Google maintained its search engine supremacy unlawfully, leveraging hefty financial agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung. This enabled Google to set itself as the default search engine across numerous devices, an advantage that Judge Mehta found to be unfairly limiting competition.

The financial scope of these agreements was substantial, with Google disbursing over $26 billion in 2021 to secure default status on various devices, a practice that the court criticized for lacking legitimate justification.

While the ruling stops short of detailing the potential penalties Google may face, it raises significant questions about the future operational landscape for Google's search engine business. An appeal from Google is anticipated.

Defending its practices, Google asserted that its search services were superior to competitors like Microsoft's Bing, arguing that its default engine agreements did not infringe antitrust laws.

Furthermore, Google's legal team urged for a broader interpretation of the search market, suggesting that Google is one among many platforms that facilitate online searches, including tech giants like TikTok and Amazon.

Another significant aspect of the trial was the scrutiny of Google's internal communication practices. The tech giant was criticized for not preserving chat records, which the government claimed could contain evidence detrimental to Google's defense. Although Judge Mehta expressed disappointment over Google's document retention practices, he opted not to sanction the company for these actions.

Looking ahead, Google is set to contend with another Justice Department lawsuit focused on its advertising techniques and alleged monopolistic behaviors in ad technology later this year."