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
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.
