Given the media frenzy around the federal antitrust actions against Google, three separate antitrust cases on distinct matters and in a trio of different phases, it is not surprising to hear speculation that the world’s dominant search engine may soon be no more.
But no matter the outcomes, consumers won’t see changes any time soon.
In what is often described as the biggest antitrust effort by the government against a tech company since the Microsoft trial at the end of the previous century, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Department of Justice and found Google guilty of being a monopolist. Mehta ruled on Aug. 5 that the company violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a leading federal antitrust law, by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly.
Mehta ruled that the company’s deals with device makers, particularly Apple, wireless carriers, and web browsers for default placement of Google’s search product were illegal. Google argued there were pro-competitive aspects to the deals and that the high market share was due to the superiority of the search product.
The trial is now in the stage of sorting out what remedies will be applied. The DOJ has submitted its recommendations. They include behavioral remedies that limit certain business practices, such as prohibiting default placement contracts. The government’s proposal also includes the most extreme remedies, such as breaking up Google.
The DOJ also warned about the possible expansions of Google’s future market power through the rise of artificial intelligence.
Some see AI’s role differently. “AI services are already eating into Google’s market share,” Patrick Hedger, director of policy at tech industry group NetChoice, told the Washington Examiner. “All this case does is hinder Google’s ability to keep pace for its own users.”
Hedger was also critical of the timeline of the legal process, describing it as “moving at a glacial pace” and being left behind by changes in the market for how consumers search for information online. The remedies phase will go forward in the spring of 2025, and Mehta plans to rule on the matter by August 2025. Google has already announced its intention to appeal the ruling after that.
On a different front, Google is fighting with the DOJ in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia over its advertising business. While the initial trial was completed in a speedy three weeks this past September, the litigation will take much longer to resolve completely. Closing arguments are set for this month, with a ruling likely early next year. Depending on the federal district court Judge Leonie Brinkema’s decision, a remedy hearing and an appeal are likely.
The case hinges on whether Google has dominance over the online advertising space and is using that position to operate illegally in various ways, including certain business practices and past acquisitions of other firms.
During the trial, Google maintained that the ad tech market is fiercely competitive.
Alden Abbott, a senior researcher at the Mercatus Center and former general counsel for the Federal Trade Commission, said consumers aren’t suffering from Google’s big presence across various aspects of the tech advertising market. He has argued that “substantial efficiencies are generated through the joint provision of products, negating the claim that competition is being harmed (or, at the very least, outweighing any harm).”
Google faces similar charges over ad tech in a case brought by a group of state attorneys general, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, slated to begin early next year. State-level antitrust action was boosted by the passage of the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act in 2022, which allows state attorneys general to keep antitrust actions in their home courts.
A third antitrust case against Google and its Android mobile platform was filed in August 2020 but not decided until 2023. Epic Games, the maker of the massively popular game Fortnite, sued Google, claiming the company was a monopolist and should be forced to allow third-party app stores, fewer restrictions on outside apps, and competing payment processors as an alternative to the Google Play app store. A jury agreed despite Google’s arguments that the accommodations would compromise the safety and security of current users if Epic were successful.
2024 ELECTIONS LIVE UPDATES: LATEST NEWS ON THE TRUMP-HARRIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Federal district court Judge James Donato ordered Google to allow rival app stores, among other things, by Nov. 1. But just days before the deadline, he granted Google a temporary administrative stay on almost all of that ruling while the tech giant appeals the verdict. That could push those remedies off for years or negate them completely if Google is successful in its appeal.
Federal government antitrust authorities are also pursuing cases against fellow tech giants Meta, Apple, and Amazon. Those outcomes, too, will be years away.