Google is a monopoly, long live Google
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
By Jonathan Guilford
NEW YORK, Aug 5 (Reuters Breakingviews) -Google now shares an ignominy with Microsoft MSFT.O. Judged by the same legal yardstick, Alphabet’s GOOGL.O web search colossus is a monopolist just as the software developer was deemed to be in 2001. It might also suffer a similar fate.
Having long ago become a verb synonymous with what it does, Google was found by a U.S. court on Monday to be illegally wielding its might over the market. The carefully constructed 276-page opinion from Judge Amit Mehta hews closely to established competition law and traditional thinking on the subject. Given how tricky it would be to disentangle the $2 trillion company’s technology, the consequences may be limited.
Regardless of the remedies, which will be determined later, the victory is a significant one for Jonathan Kanter, the U.S. Department of Justice antitrust chief, and his counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan. Both have filed a panoply of lawsuits against tech giants, and the findings in this case will be an important signal to courts presiding over the others, including another one against Google’s ad-tech business.
Microsoft was an integral factor. Mehta turned to that decision, which nixed a breakup while affirming violations of law, as a template. His approach pruned parts of the DOJ’s and fellow state attorneys' arguments, limiting the determination of just how far Google’s supremacy spreads.
Mehta’s opinion also finesses the uncomfortable finding that Google is the “highest quality search engine.” Resources play a part. Google estimated that Apple AAPL.O would need to spend $20 billion to build a similar product and billions more to operate it. The primary concern, however, is establishing ubiquity. In 2022, Google paid about $20 billion to be the default option for iPhone buyers, according to the ruling.
Even $3 trillion Microsoft has made only limited headway with its Bing search service. It was unable to dislodge Google from the Apple deal, despite offering to share 100% of its revenue.
The question now is what to do about this immovable advantage. Mehta referred to past decisions urging courts to avoid complicated solutions that force judges to be “central planners.”
Keeping things simple would probably mean a limited remedy such as stopping Google from signing exclusivity deals, or a seismic one like a divestiture. The difficulty is that search is the main business in question here, leaving no easy way to extract it. As a result, it will be as hard to contain Google’s clout as it was Microsoft’s.
Follow @JMAGuilford on X
CONTEXT NEWS
Google, the web search engine owned by Alphabet, is “a monopolist, and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on Aug. 5.
The case is a bifurcated trial, meaning that the finding of liability will be followed by a process to determine what remedies should be applied.
Editing by Jeffrey Goldfarb and Aditya Srivastav
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
