Google monopoly ruling could help Apple defense in antitrust case
Google's big loss in monopoly case could have silver lining for Apple
US judge rules Google not required to accommodate rivals, aiding Apple's defense
Apple argues limiting third-party access to its tech is not anti-competitive behavior
By Jody Godoy
Aug 6 (Reuters) -Apple AAPL.O could be the winner after Alphabet's GOOGL.O Google lost its fight with the U.S. antitrust enforcers earlier this week, with a ruling that supports the iPhone maker's defense in its own antitrust court battle with U.S. prosecutors, legal experts said.
A federal judge mostly sided with state and federal antitrust enforcers in the blockbuster case on Monday that ruled Google's search business was an illegal monopoly, but threw out a claim by several U.S. states that one of Google's ad tools was designed to give the company an advantage over Microsoft's MSFT.O Bing.
That piece could help Apple's defense in its own anti-monopoly case, experts said.
The ruling underscored Supreme Court precedent that companies almost never have a "duty to deal" with their rivals, said Herbert Hovenkamp, who teaches antitrust at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.
"Any case, including Apple, in which a duty to deal is a major portion, is going to get a close look," he said.
The states had claimed Google thwarted competition by failing to offer key features for rivals' ads through Search Ads 360, a tool for managing marketing campaigns across multiple search engines.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed with Google that it was not required to spur competition by accommodating its rival.
"Their claim requires grappling with a host of questions that the court is ill-equipped to handle," the judge said.
That part of the ruling is good for defendants, said William Kovacic, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former commissioner of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
"It also is a reminder that the case is hardly finished," he said, adding that the case and appeals could take years.
To be sure, Apple could ultimately lose billions of dollars because of the Google case if the judge bans the search juggernaut from paying the iPhone maker and others to be the default search engine on their devices.
Mehta noted that Google had paid $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to ensure that its search engine is the default on smartphones and browsers, and to keep its dominant market share.
But the Google ruling could give Apple a boost in its case where the Justice Department says it hampered the development of third-party apps and devices.
The company last week asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing that putting reasonable limitations on third-party developers' access to its technology did not amount to anti-competitive behavior, and that forcing it to share technology with competitors would chill innovation.
The judge in Apple's case need not follow Mehta's ruling, though Apple may try to use it to persuade him.
The Justice Department will have to show Apple's interactions with developers were more like Google's payments to device makers, Hovenkamp said.
"In order to win, the government is going to have to point to some kind of agreement, because then the standard becomes more aggressive," he said.
BREAKINGVIEWS-Google is a monopoly, long live Google https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/google-is-monopoly-long-live-google-2024-08-06/
In landmark Google ruling, a warning to companies about preserving evidence https://www.reuters.com/technology/landmark-google-ruling-warning-companies-about-preserving-evidence-2024-08-06/
FACTBOX-US judge rules Google has illegal monopoly on search as Big Tech scrutiny intensifies nL4N3JS281
Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis
Ativos relacionados
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
