Judge Amit Mehta delivered a ruling on August 5th in the lawsuit of United States of America v. Google, stating, “…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 conclusion of the most significant technology antitrust trial since the US challenged Microsoft in the 1990s marks the beginning of a new phase. Currently, attorneys representing Google and the Department of Justice are engaged in disputes regarding both the verdict and the subsequent actions to be taken concerning Google and its offerings.

GOOGLE AND THE DOJ

The DOJ claimed that Google engaged in anticompetitive agreements with Apple and other firms to secure advantageous positioning for its search engine. Google asserts that its extensive market share stems from having a superior product. The DOJ suggests potential solutions, such as the division of Google to separate products like Chrome, Search, and Android, though it might take some time before we learn about their complete strategy.

The search engine currently holds control over the primary digital tool utilized by the majority of prominent website publishers for ad selling purposes (publisher ad server). Additionally, it oversees the leading advertiser tool utilized by millions of advertisers, both big and small, for purchasing ad inventory (advertiser ad network). Furthermore, The search engine commands authority over the largest advertising exchange (ad exchange), which employs real-time auctions to facilitate the matching of online ad buyers and sellers.

The search engine’s anticompetitive conduct has included:

• Acquiring Competitors: Engaging in a pattern of acquisitions to obtain control over key digital advertising tools used by website publishers to sell advertising space;
• Forcing Adoption of Google’s Tools: Locking in website publishers to its newly-acquired tools by restricting its unique, must-have advertiser demand to its ad exchange, and in turn, conditioning effective real-time access to its ad exchange on the use of its publisher ad server;
• Distorting Auction Competition: Limiting real-time bidding on publisher inventory to its ad exchange, and impeding rival ad exchanges’ ability to compete on the same terms as Google’s ad exchange; and
• Auction Manipulation: Manipulating auction mechanics across several of its products to insulate Google from competition, deprive rivals of scale, and halt the rise of rival technologies.

Due to its unlawful control over the market, the search engine profits from over 30% of the advertising revenue generated through its digital advertising technology products, according to its own calculations. In some cases, it takes an even larger share from specific publishers and advertisers. Google’s anti-competitive behavior has effectively stifled the growth of alternative technologies, impeding their acceptance among publishers, advertisers, and competitors.

The Sherman Act represents America’s ongoing dedication to promoting competition and economic freedom. For more than 100 years, the Department has been enforcing antitrust laws to combat illegal monopolistic behavior, aiming to restore competition in the market. In addressing Google’s anticompetitive actions, the Department seeks fair remedies for the American public and triple damages for federal government agencies that paid excessive amounts for web display advertising. This enforcement action is the Department’s first case in about 50 years seeking damages for a civil antitrust violation related to monopolization.

After Judge Amit Mehta’s determination that the search engine has a monopoly status, the Department of Justice attorneys have commenced suggesting remedies to rectify the company’s unlawful actions and reinstate competition in the search engine market. The DOJ complaint can be read in full below.

Us v Google Complaint 0 by MyrtleBeachSC news on Scribd

This encompasses a range of actions, from implementing a consent decree to monitor the company’s conduct to compelling divestiture of certain business segments like Chrome, Android, or Google Play.

Plaintiffs are also evaluating potential measures, both behavioral and structural, to hinder Google’s ability to unfairly benefit its search engine and related products like Chrome, Play, and Android. This includes any upcoming search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence, that could give the search engine an advantage over competitors or new players in the industry.

Google’s control over the distribution of search and their financial agreements to become the default choice on platforms such as the iPhone are the main concerns mentioned in the filing. The Department of Justice lawyers state that due to the revenue share payments funded by Google’s monopoly, competitors are unable to vie for these distribution channels, as it discourages their partners from directing queries towards Google’s rivals.

The DOJ is contemplating additional measures aimed at influencing user behavior. For instance, they are considering the requirement for the search engine to support educational campaigns that raise awareness among users, enabling them to make an informed choice regarding their preferred general search engine.

In a response on Google’s blog late Tuesday, the search engine stated the suggested framework surpasses the legal boundaries of the Court’s decision on Search distribution contracts. They argue that separating Chrome or Android would cause them to lose functionality. Google asserts that the existence of Chrome and Android as free products enables billions of people to access the internet, and very few companies would have the capacity or motivation to maintain their open-source nature or invest in them to the same extent as the search engine does.