Landmark Google Antitrust Case Could Shake Up Silicon Valley. Here’s What to Know

Thanks to this court ruling, browsers like DUCKDUCKGO, might have a real chance in the marketplace.  Competition makes everything better—and in this case might end the vile censorship and bias of GOOGLE.

“Mehta’s ruling focused solely on whether the Mountain View-based tech giant broke the law. Now, a separate trial will focus on a remedy, or perhaps more than one.

The judge might opt to force Google to separate its search engine from other parts of its business. Alternatively, Mehta could order “conduct remedies,” like requiring Google to end legally provocative deals such as the one it has with Apple, making it the default search option on iPhones. Google might also be required to license parts of its search business or present consumers with a “choice screen” that prompts users to consider a different default browser.”

Imagine a world of real free speech—not information controlled by one company or government?

Landmark Google Antitrust Case Could Shake Up Silicon Valley. Here’s What to Know

Rachael Myrow,  KQED,  8/6/24  https://www.kqed.org/news/11999009/landmark-google-antitrust-case-could-shake-up-silicon-valley-heres-what-to-know

For more than a decade, a federal judge ruled this week, Google held a monopoly over internet searches that allowed it to inflate prices for ads, bringing in billions of dollars a year, which it used to pay for prime placement deals for its search engine — a feedback loop that gave the Mountain View tech giant “access to scale that its rivals cannot match.”

Legal analysts say the ruling released Monday by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta could shake up Silicon Valley to a degree not seen in more than two decades when the Justice Department took Microsoft to court on similar charges.

But they’re split on whether this case is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Also unclear is whether this ruling will chasten Google and slow its roll as it attempts to dominate rivals in generative AI.

Why this matters

The government’s case relies on the Sherman Antitrust Act, a 19th-century law that made it illegal for a monopoly to engage in corporate conduct to thwart competition. But that law, designed for companies like Standard Oil, has not always succeeded with modern-day judges considering modern-day technology markets. The FTC, for instance, has had trouble meeting thresholds of proof in some of its recent efforts to rein in Silicon Valley giants.

The Microsoft antitrust case, which alleged that practices like bullying smaller players into contracts and leveraging the popularity of its digital platform to stifle competition should be illegal, was a clear win for the Justice Department. That case, antitrust experts say, moderated the company’s behavior and prevented Microsoft from using its dominance in personal computers to establish dominance over the development of the internet.

While the Google ruling doesn’t set a new precedent or “fundamentally change” the use of antitrust laws, it shows they “can and do work to rein in the market power of modern technology companies … and it will encourage the DOJ and the FTC to continue bringing such cases,” according to Florian Ederer, a professor of markets, public policy and law for Boston University.

What’s next?

Mehta’s ruling focused solely on whether the Mountain View-based tech giant broke the law. Now, a separate trial will focus on a remedy, or perhaps more than one.

The judge might opt to force Google to separate its search engine from other parts of its business. Alternatively, Mehta could order “conduct remedies,” like requiring Google to end legally provocative deals such as the one it has with Apple, making it the default search option on iPhones. Google might also be required to license parts of its search business or present consumers with a “choice screen” that prompts users to consider a different default browser.

Google plans to appeal, according to Kent Walker, president of global affairs. “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” he wrote in a post on X.

Yale School of Management economics professor Fiona Scott Morton said the government’s case has a good chance of holding up.

“The reliance on the Microsoft decision was a shrewd choice by DOJ,” Scott Morton said. “In many ways, this is a mainstream decision that does not take any risks, so it should be very robust on appeal.”

What experts are watching

After the Microsoft ruling, a judge ordered the company to be split in two. Although that remedy was reversed on appeal, it’s being closely watched in the Google case.

“The remedy must match the Court’s striking verdict in this case,” Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement online praising the ruling. “At a minimum, that means an end to Google’s exclusive default agreements and breaking up business lines that have allowed Google to extend its monopoly into every corner of the internet.”

The DOJ’s antitrust chief, Jonathan Kanter, has expressed support for so-called structural remedies, which typically mean a break. But many antitrust experts aren’t so sure about that.

“A structural remedy, like a breakup of Google, is very unlikely,” wrote professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth of Vanderbilt Law School, adding that “whatever happens, it’s going to take a long time – the remedy phase will take a while, then there will be an appeal. It could be years before we know the end of the story.”

Driving the story

Key to Mehta’s ruling is Google’s position as the default search engine for many operating systems, web browsers, mobile carriers and more — an advantage that the company “pays huge sums to secure,” the judge wrote.

Mehta pointed to “the power of defaults,” writing, “The field of behavioral economics teaches that a consumer’s choice can be heavily influenced by how it is presented.”

“The finding that defaults substantially affect consumer behavior has been long known in the economics literature and has overwhelming evidence, so it’s nice to see a court find that they matter in a competition setting,” said Scott Morton, a Yale professor.

Zoom out

The ruling comes against the backdrop of the battle for dominance in generative artificial intelligence. “The race to become a or even the dominant player in AI is still wide open and many competitors are jostling for position,” wrote Ederer, the Boston University professor. “There has been tremendous scrutiny of all acquisitions and contracting decisions of the big tech companies in the last few years. That scrutiny will surely not diminish.”

Ederer added it remains unclear how this latest ruling will affect Google’s efforts in this space, depending “entirely on the sanctions and remedies imposed on Google. And at this point, we really don’t know what those will be.”

Professor Scott Morton argued the decision may slow down Google’s deployment of AI through its search engine “if that was a plan the company had, because its search engine distribution contracts will now have to be re-designed.”