‘Seismic’ Google Ruling Boosts Big Tech Antitrust Cases

The “seismic” ruling in the US v. Google case, which declares the search engine giant a monopolist, could be a boon for the federal government’s litany of antitrust cases against big technology companies, experts said.

The decision marks a significant victory for the Department of Justice (DOJ) as it and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continue to litigate far-reaching antitrust cases against technology giants such as Amazon, Meta and Apple.

“This is one of the most important monopoly cases the Justice Department has brought since the Microsoft case,” said Roger Alford, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, referring to the landmark antitrust ruling against Microsoft in 2001.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta on Monday found that Google has a monopoly on online search and advertising, which it maintains through exclusive agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung that ensure its search engine is the default on your devices.

“After carefully considering and weighing the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist and has acted as such to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote.

The ruling is “seismic” for the government’s antitrust cases and the industry as a whole, said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

“It’s a sign that the tide is changing in antitrust law, in general, away from the laissez faire system we’ve had for the last 40 years,” she told The Hill.

Allensworth highlighted the court’s ruling that “econometric evidence” was not necessary to prove the existence of a given market – a preliminary step in determining whether a company has a monopoly.

“For many years, the idea that you needed to have hard data to prove a market if you were a plaintiff created really high and somewhat arbitrary barriers to lawsuits, especially against companies like Big Tech, where markets are not easily defined using dollars and cents,” Allensworth said.

“This participation, I think, is really important and will create repercussions throughout the industry and antitrust law in general,” she added.

Mehta’s conclusion that Google’s exclusive deals reduced incentives to invest and innovate in search was also an important change, according to Allensworth.

“For the past 40 years, only exclusionary effects have really been emphasized in antitrust cases,” she said. “And to say that we care about this, in addition to and in some ways because of the harm to innovation, really turns on its head an argument that technology has made against antitrust enforcement.”

“They’ve been saying, ‘If you come after us with antitrust enforcement, you’re going to lose innovation,’” Allensworth continued, adding, “This case essentially says, ‘Sure, but there’s another type of innovation that we care about. also. And in fact, you may, as the dominant monopolist, be harming that innovation.’”

The decision builds momentum for another government case against Google and will “certainly encourage” regulators to “invest resources, time and commitment” in these cases, Alford said. However, he also emphasized that each case of monopoly is unique.

The case decided Monday was brought by the Justice Department in 2020. The agency also filed a separate antitrust case against Google in 2023, in which it accused the tech giant of monopolizing digital advertising technology.

The DOJ also sued Apple earlier this year for allegedly maintaining an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market.

The FTC filed an antitrust case against Amazon last year, accusing the e-commerce giant of anticompetitive practices that harm third-party sellers and buyers. The agency also sued Meta in 2020 over the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

John Mayo, professor of economics, business and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, also urged caution about “unduly extrapolating” Google’s decision to bring forward victories in other cases.

“I understand this might excite folks at the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department’s antitrust division,” Mayo said.

“But as an independent observer, I would say that every case of monopolization I have seen is very idiosyncratic, and the results will likely be determined not by the common Big Tech label, but rather based on the facts of each particular case. ,” he continued.

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story