In the inaugural Monopoly trial of the modern internet era, the United States turns its attention towards Google.
Over the span of three years and two presidential administrations, the Justice Department has meticulously built a case alleging that Google engaged in illegal practices to stifle competition within the online search realm. In response, Google has mobilized an extensive defense, involving numerous employees, three formidable law firms, and substantial financial resources allocated to legal fees and lobbyists.
On Tuesday, proceedings will commence in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where a judge will commence deliberations on their respective arguments. This trial delves deep into a longstanding query: Did today’s tech titans ascend to dominance through unlawful means?
The case, known as U.S. et al v. Google, represents the federal government’s maiden monopoly trial in the modern internet era. This comes at a juncture when a generation of tech enterprises has amassed remarkable sway over commerce, information dissemination, public discourse, entertainment, and the labor market. The trial signifies a pivotal shift in the antitrust battle against these companies, moving beyond scrutiny of their mergers and acquisitions to a more comprehensive examination of the very foundations that catapulted them to prominence.
A case of such far-reaching consequence concerning the power of tech giants has not transpired since the Justice Department’s legal action against Microsoft in 1998 for antitrust transgressions. However, since that era, companies such as Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta (the owner of Facebook and Instagram) have become even more deeply entrenched in people’s daily lives. The verdict from this trial could unleash profound repercussions, potentially slowing down or even dismantling the largest internet conglomerates after decades of unchecked expansion.
The core issue at hand revolves around whether Google unlawfully solidified its supremacy and stifled competition by offering compensation to Apple and various other companies to establish its internet search engine as the default option on the iPhone and other devices and platforms.
In its legal submissions, the Justice Department has contended that Google sustained a monopoly through these agreements, which, in turn, hindered consumers from opting for alternative search engines. Google, in response, has asserted that its arrangements with Apple and other parties were non-exclusive, permitting consumers to adjust the default settings on their devices to select alternative search engines.
Google presently commands 90 percent of the search engine market in the United States and 91 percent globally, according to Similarweb, a data analysis firm.
Expectations are high for the trial, which is slated to span a 10-week duration. Witnesses at the trial are likely to include Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, as well as executives from Apple and other tech firms.
Judge Amit P. Mehta, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014, is presiding over the trial, which will be conducted without a jury. Judge Mehta will issue the final verdict. Kenneth Dintzer, a seasoned litigator with 30 years of experience at the Justice Department, will spearhead the government’s arguments in the courtroom, while John E. Schmidtlein, a partner at the law firm Williams & Connolly, will do the same for Google.
The lead-up to the trial has already witnessed intense maneuvering. Both the Justice Department and Google have deposed over 150 individuals for the case and have produced more than five million pages of documents. Google has raised concerns about potential bias in Jonathan Kanter, the head of antitrust at the Justice Department, due to his prior legal representation of Microsoft and News Corp. Conversely, the Justice Department has accused Google of erasing employees’ instant messages that could have contained pertinent information for the case.
Jonathan Kanter, center, the top antitrust official in the Justice Department, with Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta in January.Credit…Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via Shutterstock
Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs, expressed in a recent interview that the company’s strategies are “fully compliant with the law” and attributes its success to “the quality of our products.”
He remarked, “It’s frustrating, perhaps even ironic, that we’re contending with this retrospective case while witnessing truly groundbreaking, forward-thinking innovations.”
The Justice Department declined to provide a comment.
Sergey Brin and Larry Page, while students at Stanford University in the 1990s, pioneered Google’s search engine, earning widespread acclaim for delivering more pertinent search results compared to other web search tools. Google subsequently leveraged this triumph to diversify into various new business ventures, encompassing online advertising, video streaming, mapping, office applications, autonomous vehicles, and artificial intelligence.
Google has faced longstanding allegations from competitors, asserting that it has exploited its dominance in search to stifle rival links related to travel, restaurant reviews, and maps, while elevating the prominence of its own content. These allegations drew regulatory attention, albeit minimal action was taken.
In 2019, during President Donald J. Trump’s administration, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission initiated fresh antitrust investigations targeting tech companies as part of a comprehensive regulatory effort. The Justice Department assumed responsibility for scrutinizing Apple and Google in particular.
In October 2020, the government initiated legal action against Google, alleging the abuse of its dominant position in online search. The lawsuit specifically accused Google of detrimentally affecting competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo. This was purportedly achieved through agreements with Apple and other smartphone manufacturers, resulting in Google becoming the default search engine on their web browsers or being preinstalled on their devices.
The Justice Department stated in its lawsuit, “Two decades ago, Google emerged as a Silicon Valley darling—a scrappy startup with an innovative approach to navigating the emerging internet. That Google is now a thing of the past.” The agency contended that Google’s actions had harmed consumers and stifled competition, potentially influencing the future technological landscape as the company positioned itself to control “emerging channels” for distributing search. The agency drew parallels to Microsoft’s practices in the 1990s, when the software giant made its web browser the default on the Windows operating system, effectively sidelining competitors.
In 2020, a coalition of 35 states, along with Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, also filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging monopolistic practices in search and search advertising. This case will be heard alongside the Justice Department’s lawsuit, although Judge Mehta recently dismissed many of the states’ core arguments in a ruling issued last month.
In January, the Justice Department introduced a distinct antitrust lawsuit against Google, asserting the abuse of its monopoly power in advertising technology. Additionally, Google is facing two other legal actions from states, one accusing it of monopolistic practices in ad tech and the other regarding alleged competition-blocking actions within its Google Play app store.
For decades, the prevailing trend in antitrust cases has typically seen judges rule against companies only when their actions negatively impact consumers, particularly when those actions lead to price increases. Critics argue that this approach often lets companies like Google, which offers free internet search services, avoid accountability.
Kent Walker, Google’s president
For decades, the prevailing trend in antitrust cases has typically seen judges rule against companies only when their actions negatively impact consumers, particularly when those actions lead to price increases. Critics argue that this approach often lets companies like Google, which offers free internet search services, avoid accountability.
Kent Walker, representing Google, emphasized that this case presents an opportunity for the court to reaffirm this consumer-centric standard. He asserted, “American law should prioritize benefits for consumers,” and further stated, “If we deviate from this and create obstacles for companies to deliver excellent products and services to consumers, it will have adverse consequences for everyone.”
Historically, monopoly trials have the potential to reshape entire industries. In 1984, following pressure from the Justice Department, AT&T underwent a split into seven regional telecom companies. This landmark decision reshaped the telecommunications sector, fostering greater competition at the advent of the mobile phone era.
However, the repercussions of the government’s antitrust clash with Microsoft in the early 2000s were less straightforward. Ultimately, the two parties reached a settlement that involved Microsoft discontinuing certain contracts with PC manufacturers that had hindered rival software makers.
Some technology industry leaders contend that the actions taken by the Justice Department had a cautionary effect on Microsoft, which, in turn, paved the way for emerging players like Google to enter the next phase of computing. Bill Gates, one of Microsoft’s founders, has attributed the company’s sluggish entry into mobile technology and the downfall of its Windows phone to the aftermath of the antitrust lawsuit. However, others argue that the settlement had minimal impact on fostering competition.
In essence, the Google trial will serve as a litmus test for the efficacy of antitrust laws formulated in 1890 to dismantle monopolies in industries such as sugar, steel, and railroads. Rebecca Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school, observes, “The Google trial represents a substantial examination of the government’s overall antitrust agenda because its theory of monopolization remains highly relevant to many major tech firms.”