A US judge found that Google spent billions to create an illegal monopoly in the search and advertising markets and used it to deliver “unconstrained price increases” – Google plans to appeal the ruling.
Judge Amit Mehta found that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” adding in his opinion that “Google's distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects.”
His finding, published August 5, represents a notable victory for the Department of Justice. Mehta said in a 286-page opinion that “Google's distribution agreements have constrained the query volumes of its rivals, thereby inoculating Google against any genuine competitive threat.”
Google has spent tens of billions of dollars, including an estimated $20 billion payout in 2022 to Apple alone, on deals to secure a dominant position as the default search provider on smartphones and browsers. (Its payments to Firefox maker Mozilla make up 80% of its operating budget.)
See also: Supreme Court sides with Google on API "fair use", ending epic copyright clash with Oracle
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available," Google said in a statement, pledging to contest the ruling.
This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” contended Attorney General Garland meanwhile. “No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”
A separate trial will take place on a remedy. The DOJ has been circumspect about what it wants, saying it is focused on the initial phase.
This case is separate from another antitrust suit brought by the Biden administration in 2023 related to the company’s advertising technology business. That case is expected to head to trial in early September.
In that case, prosecutors allege that “Google’s conduct has drastically altered the supply paths through which available display advertising inventory is sold, reducing payouts to publishers, burdening advertisers and publishers with lower-quality matches of advertisements to inventory, and inhibiting choice and innovation across the ad tech stack.”
As The Stack reported in May, Google had offered a “cashier’s check, payable to the United States” as it tried to kill off a Department of Justice bid for a jury trial. In June a federal judge agreed with Google’s position that this was improper. The case will be heard by the judge on September 6. Google suggested in May in its motion to a district court that “a sovereign such as the United States has no right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, even for its damages claim; and second, although Google continues to vigorously contest liability, its tender of full monetary relief moots the damages claim and streamlines the litigation…”
This week’s full opinion by Judge Amit Mehta is here [pdf]
See also: Google offers a large “cashier’s check” to make jury trial vanish
