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
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
