- Google found to have created an illegal monopoly over its search engine.
- Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google stifled competition and innovation.
- Google plans to appeal the decision, arguing its dominance is due to popularity.
A US judge has ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over its search engine, spending billions to thwart competition and stifle innovation. The decision marks a significant antitrust victory for US authorities against Big Tech.
Judge Amit Mehta concluded that Google is a monopolist, citing its 89.2% market share in general search services, rising to 94.9% on mobile devices. This ruling follows a landmark case where US authorities argued that Google’s dominance allowed it to charge advertisers high prices while neglecting search engine improvements.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland called the decision a historic win for the American people, emphasizing that no company is above the law. The ruling could lead to a second trial to determine remedies, possibly including a breakup of Alphabet, Google’s parent company.
Google processes around 8.5 billion search queries daily, almost double the volume from 12 years ago. Despite this, Google argues its dominance is due to consumer preference. Google’s global affairs president, Kent Walker, announced plans to appeal, noting that Judge Mehta acknowledged Google’s superior search engine quality.
The case, initiated under former President Trump, underscores bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement. Senator Amy Klobuchar highlighted the case as a significant victory for competition and antitrust enforcement.
Justice Department lawyers portrayed Google as a technological bully that methodically protected its search engine, central to a digital advertising machine generating nearly $240 billion in revenue last year. Mehta’s ruling noted Google’s substantial spending to secure default search engine positions on new devices, totaling over $26 billion in 2021 alone.
Experts anticipate a lengthy appeal process, potentially delaying any immediate impact on users and advertisers. The ruling sets a precedent in a series of cases challenging alleged monopolies in Big Tech, including Meta, Amazon, and Apple.
