Google's online search monopoly is illegal, US judge rules

A significant ruling has been made by a US judge regarding Google's business practices. The judge determined that Google acted unlawfully in its efforts to eliminate competition and maintain its dominance in the online search and advertising markets. This ruling, which was announced on a Monday, represents a substantial setback for Alphabet, Google's parent company, and it has the potential to alter the landscape of how major technology firms operate. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google in 2020, claiming that the company controls approximately 90% of the online search market. This lawsuit is part of a broader effort by US antitrust authorities to promote competition within the tech industry. The case has been described as a significant threat to Google's existence due to its overwhelming control over search and online advertising. The exact consequences that Google and Alphabet will face as a result of this ruling remain uncertain, as the penalties will be determined in a future court hearing. The government has requested 'structural relief,' which could potentially lead to the breakup of the company. In his ruling, US District Judge Amit Mehta stated that Google has invested billions of dollars to ensure it is the default search engine on smartphones and web browsers. Judge Mehta wrote, 'Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. ' In response to the ruling, Alphabet announced its intention to appeal. The company stated, 'This decision recognises that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available. ' US Attorney General Merrick Garland praised the ruling as a 'historic win for the American people. ' He emphasized that 'No company - no matter how large or influential - is above the law,' and assured that the Justice Department would continue to enforce antitrust laws vigorously. Other lawsuits have also been filed against major tech companies, including Meta Platforms, Amazon, and Apple, accusing them of operating illegal monopolies. The ruling followed a 10-week trial in Washington DC, where prosecutors argued that Google spends billions of dollars each year to companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla to be the default search engine on their platforms. The US government claimed that Google typically pays over $10 billion annually for this privilege, which secures its access to valuable user data and helps maintain its market dominance. Prosecutors argued that this practice prevents other companies from competing effectively. Department of Justice lawyer Kenneth Dintzer stated during the trial, 'The best testimony for that, for the importance of defaults, is Google's cheque book. ' Google's search engine generates significant revenue for the company, primarily through advertising displayed on its results pages. Google's legal team defended the company by asserting that users are drawn to their search engine because it is useful, and that Google is continually investing to improve the experience for consumers. During closing arguments, Google's lawyer John Schmidtlein stated, 'Google is winning because it’s better. ' He also pointed out that Google faces intense competition not only from other search engines like Microsoft's Bing but also from specialized websites and applications that people use to find services such as restaurants and flights. In his ruling, Judge Mehta concluded that being the default search engine is 'extremely valuable real estate' for Google. He noted that even if a new competitor were to emerge with a high-quality product, they would need to be prepared to pay billions of dollars to secure partnerships for the default position. Another case against Google regarding its advertising technology is set to go to trial in September. Meanwhile, in Europe, Google is facing numerous monopoly cases that could have significant implications for the company.