‘Google is a monopolist’: Search giant broke antitrust laws in landmark case, judge rules

Google violated federal antitrust laws to create a dominant grip over the Internet search market, a federal judge said in a landmark ruling Monday that could have far-reaching implications for the future of the Internet.

Judge Amit Mehta sided with the Justice Department, which argued during last year’s landmark trial that Google relied on anticompetitive payments to companies like Apple, Samsung and AT&T — including $26.3 billion in 2021 alone — to ensure that its search engine to be enabled by default in most cases. smart phones.

Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in two markets — general search services and general text advertising — finding that the default search engine agreements “are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects.”

“Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta said in a lengthy opinion in the case.

The ruling marked the first time in more than two decades that the DOJ has won an antitrust case against a Big Tech firm — and could upend Google’s lucrative digital advertising business, which generates more than $300 billion in annual revenue.

A separate trial will be held to determine potential damages.

The DOJ has not yet specified what remedies it will seek, although experts have suggested the court could force Google to stop enforcing default agreements.

“This victory against Google is a historic victory for the American people,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland. “No company – no matter how big or influential – is above the law. The Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”

Shares of Google parent Alphabet fell 4.6% in Monday trading amid a broader stock market selloff.

Google plans to appeal the decision, the company’s president of global affairs Kent Walker said in a statement.

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we should not be allowed to make it readily available,” Walker said in a statement.

Antitrust watchdogs hailed Mehta’s decision as a long-overdue blow to Google.

“For more than a decade, Google bent the entire digital market to its will – resulting in higher prices, less competition and a degraded internet for everyone,” said Sacha Haworth, Executive Director of the Project Technical Supervision. “When tech monopolies manipulate our economy, it hurts us all.”

The ruling could affect other antitrust cases pending against the company, according to Christine Bartholomew, a professor at the University at Buffalo Law School who specializes in antitrust litigation.

“It’s rare that a Section 2 case goes anywhere. They’re just hard-won cases,” Bartholomew said. “We don’t see the government bring them in very often, we certainly don’t see them being successful in them very often.”

DOJ lawyers argued the payments were critical as Google built a massive 90% share of the internet search market, pushing aside distant rivals such as Microsoft and DuckDuckGo.

Google denied wrongdoing, arguing that the deals were merely fair compensation.

The 10-week trial featured testimony from a number of prominent witnesses, including Pichai and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella — the latter of whom argued that Google’s default agreements made the concept of user choice “completely bogus” in Internet search.

Pichai, along with Google’s legal team, argued that the public chooses to use its search engine because it is a better product than those offered by rivals.

Mehta found that the default status worked as a “huge, largely unseen advantage over its rivals”.

“Default is extremely valuable real estate,” Mehta said. “Because many users simply stick to search by default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those entry points.”

The judge’s decision is just one of several legal headaches threatening Google’s business empire. A separate DOJ case accusing the company of maintaining an illegal monopoly over online ad technology will continue to trial this fall.

The DOJ is also pursuing an antitrust case against Apple, while the Federal Trade Commission has pending actions against Meta and Amazon.

Google faced intense scrutiny during the trial over revelations that the company had failed to preserve key evidence by allowing chunks of employee conversations to be deleted despite a court order.

The DOJ asked Mehta to impose sanctions against Google for implementing a policy that caused employee messages to be automatically deleted after 24 hours.

Despite calling Google’s actions “reckless” during closing arguments, Mehta declined to impose sanctions on the company for its conduct – arguing that they “wouldn’t move the needle on the court’s assessment of Google’s liability” in this occasion.

“The court’s decision not to sanction Google should not be construed as condoning Google’s failure to preserve evidence of the conversation,” Mehta said. “Any company that places the onus on its employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril.”