What is the Google ‘monopoly’ antitrust case and how does it affect consumers? Premium

Google lost a major antitrust case brought against it by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The story so far: Google lost a major antitrust case brought against it by the U.S. Department of Justice that sought to establish that the tech giant had a monopoly in the web search and advertising sectors. The 10-week-long case that took place last year saw high-profile tech leaders like Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella debating the dominance of the Google search engine and arguing whether this was due to the company’s merits or its unfair practices. In the end, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled, per a court record dated August 5, 2024, that Google was a monopolist.

(Unravel the complexities of our digital world on The Interface podcast, where business leaders and scientists share insights that shape tomorrow’s innovation. The Interface is also available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts and Spotify.)

According to the ruling, Google’s search dominance was majorly achieved through a strategy of exclusive distribution agreements, or default distribution. This refers to the way Google entered into lucrative contracts with “browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers” so that it was the first or default search engine that users of such services or new phones were given. Google pays for this privilege and has shelled out more than $26 billion for it in 2021, per the court.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” the ruling noted, referencing a U.S. law that views business monopoly or attempts at monopolising as an offence.

Per the court, Google used its monopoly power in two markets: general search services and general search text ads.

“Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supra-competitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits,” reported the filing.

Furthermore, the court harshly criticised the way Google failed to preserve employee correspondence that could have served as evidence.