Today, the D.C. District Court decided remedies in the landmark U.S. v. Google search case. The court determined last year that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act for its anticompetitive conduct in the general search and general search text advertising markets. The U.S. Department of Justice filed this antitrust suit against Google in 2020, claiming that the company had monopolized the search engine market as well as the market for general search advertising. The suit followed our letters urging the Justice Department to review Google’s conduct for anticompetitive behavior in the search and advertising technology markets.
The following can be attributed to Elise Phillips, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge:
“We are disappointed that Judge Amit Mehta’s final remedies did not align with the government’s request for remedies in this case. Google’s anticompetitive harm is not up for debate – Judge Mehta himself confirmed Google’s abuse of its market power in search when he ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act last August.
“Most critically, Judge Mehta has elected not to require Google to divest the Chrome browser or conditionally divest Android OS, and he declined to ban default payments. He did so while conceding in all respects that the government made sound, clear arguments for why each of these requested remedies would have improved the market for competitors and consumers. While we are pleased that data-sharing remedies were included, Judge Mehta’s decision issues a kneecapped version of the government’s proposal that fails to address the full extent of Google’s anticompetitive behavior. The DOJ’s proposed structural and behavioral remedies were necessary to remedy Google’s behavior and prevent further anticompetitive conduct. By declining to impose robust remedies in this case, Judge Mehta has given Google free rein to continue abusing its dominant power in the online ecosystem.
“Google’s dominant power on the internet is far reaching – from its massive user data advantage to its economic power to outpace competitors with massive payments to be the default browser. To be clear, Google has great products. But by wielding these advantages, Google ceased competing with its products on the merits; instead, Google’s strategy shifted to guaranteeing no other firm in the search market could even come close.
“Judge Mehta’s initial decision that Google violated antitrust law remains an important first step toward a more open, competitive ecosystem where consumers have an ocean of innovative products to choose from and easily switch to. Additionally, we applaud the Justice Department’s work on this landmark case. The DOJ’s team didn’t just assemble a strong case in this instance – they brought receipts. However, this decision regarding remedies was a missed opportunity to rebalance the scales of power online.
“Judge Mehta’s remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust. Google’s anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice.”
You may view our blog post series on the trial for more information.
Members of the media may contact Communications Director Shiva Stella with inquiries, interview requests, or to join the Public Knowledge press list at shiva@publicknowledge.org or 405-249-9435.