Since September 12, the Department of Justice and a group of state attorneys general have been conducting a landmark monopoly trial against Google. The trial may have significant implications for the power of the technology industry. Over 30 witnesses have been questioned as part of the government’s case, aiming to prove that Google has violated antitrust laws. The government is now concluding its side of the case, with Google preparing to present its defense.
The government has focused on two main arguments. Firstly, it claims that Google engaged in illegal practices to maintain its dominance in online search and search ads. Particularly, the government highlighted Google’s payment of billions of dollars to Apple and other tech platforms to ensure that it becomes the default search engine on devices like the iPhone. This evidence supports the government’s contention that Google used multi-billion dollar contracts to solidify its monopoly position. The value of these deals had not been disclosed previously, making it a significant aspect of the trial. Witnesses, including Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella, testified that competing with Google’s default agreements was nearly impossible. Additionally, internal documents from Google were presented to show how these defaults were used to keep rivals at bay. Google argues that switching defaults on browsers is a simple process.
Secondly, the government argues that Google’s scale distorts the competitive landscape, preventing rivals from effectively entering the search engine market. Kenneth Dintzer, the lead courtroom lawyer for the Justice Department, highlighted that Google’s dominance has been advantageous for the company for over 12 years. Microsoft’s Nadella, one of the government’s key witnesses, acknowledged that Google’s search engine dominance has been difficult to challenge. Sridhar Ramaswamy, a former Google executive, explained during his testimony that payments made by Google to companies like Apple had created an ecosystem resistant to change.
The government also asserted that Google’s search dominance negatively impacts consumers. One example provided was that Google’s dominance limits consumers’ access to alternative search engines, potentially depriving them of services that prioritize personal privacy. Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of DuckDuckGo, testified to support this claim, stating that Google’s control over default search engines hindered his company’s efforts. Google argues that it constantly enhances its search engine to improve the consumer experience.
Furthermore, the government claimed that Google’s search dominance allows it to exert influence over the market for online ads. Testimony from Joshua Lowcock, a former ad buying firm executive, indicated that Google had a significant share of the search market, making its search ads more appealing to clients compared to ads on Bing. Employees from major advertisers, such as Home Depot and JPMorgan Chase, also testified to emphasize the importance of Google’s search advertising services. Arjan Dijk, a former Google executive, highlighted that Google’s search ads provided access to a dominant pool of potential customers. Consequently, Google has the ability to increase ad prices due to limited options for marketers.
During the trial, the Justice Department scrutinized Google employees over the potential for inflated prices on search ads, as advertisers may have limited alternatives. An email from a Google executive suggested considering product adjustments to increase search queries and boost ad revenue. Jeff Hurst, former COO of Expedia, provided an example of Vrbo’s experience to demonstrate Google’s power to raise prices without providing additional value to advertisers. Vrbo spent significantly more on Google search ads in 2019 compared to 2015, resulting in the same level of traffic. Google countered this argument by noting the growth and success of both Expedia and Vrbo since 2015, as well as their strategic focus on generating traffic directly from their mobile apps.
Overall, the trial has examined Google’s alleged antitrust violations, particularly its practices to maintain its search and search ads monopolies. The government has presented evidence of Google’s financial agreements, its dominance preventing competition, and the negative impact on consumers and advertisers. Google will now have the opportunity to present its defense in response to these claims.
