New York - A US judge has ruled that Google acted illegally to crush its competition and maintain a monopoly on online search and related advertising.
The landmark decision on Monday is a major blow to Alphabet, Google's parent company, and could reshape how technology giants conduct their business.
Google was sued by the US Department of Justice in 2020 over its control of approximately 90% of the online search market. This lawsuit is part of a broader push by US antitrust authorities to bolster competition in the tech industry.
At times, the case has been described as an existential threat to Google and its owner, given their dominance in search and online advertising. The specific penalties Google and Alphabet will face are not yet clear, as they will be determined in a future hearing. The government has requested "structural relief," which could potentially mean the break-up of the company.
In his 277-page opinion, US District Judge Amit Mehta stated that Google had paid billions to secure its position as the default search engine on smartphones and browsers. "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Judge Mehta wrote.
Alphabet plans to appeal the ruling, arguing, “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” as stated in their response.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland hailed the ruling as a "historic win for the American people," asserting, “No company - no matter how large or influential - is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”
Federal antitrust regulators have also filed other lawsuits against Big Tech firms, including Meta Platforms, Amazon, and Apple, accusing them of operating unlawful monopolies.
The ruling follows a 10-week trial in Washington DC, where prosecutors alleged that Google spent billions annually to secure default search engine status with Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others. The US government claimed that this practice prevented other companies from competing effectively.
“The best testimony for that, for the importance of defaults, is Google's cheque book,” argued Department of Justice lawyer Kenneth Dintzer during the trial.
Google’s search engine generates substantial revenue for the company, largely through advertising. Google's lawyers defended the company by arguing that its search engine’s popularity is due to its superior quality and that Google continues to invest in improving it. “Google is winning because it’s better,” said Google's lawyer John Schmidtlein during closing arguments.
Schmidtlein also argued that Google faces intense competition from not only other search engines like Microsoft's Bing but also from specialized sites and apps used for various services.
Judge Mehta concluded that being the default search engine represents "extremely valuable real estate" for Google. “Even if a new entrant were positioned from a quality standpoint to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a firm could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners upwards of billions of dollars in revenue share,” Judge Mehta wrote.
Another case against Google regarding its advertising technology is scheduled to go to trial in September. In Europe, Google has previously been fined billions for similar antitrust violations.