Google is among the biggest companies around, providing us with a great search engine and the underlying software ofmany great smartphones. It’s clear that it shapes the world through its products and services, and it’s definitely made many things a lot easier for many people. But at the same time, the company is concerned about keeping its products at the top of the food chain, and that might sometimes involve anti-competitive practices. At least, that’s what US regulators are alleging in a landmark antitrust trial against the company.
As the trial begins on Tuesday, September 12, we can look forward to 10 weeks of juicy discussions about whether the company abused its power to become and stay a gatekeeper on the web. Here’s what you need to know.
What is happening?
The trial is a culmination of an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department a little less than three years ago, back when Donald Trump was still President. Back then, US Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosentold the Associated Press, “Google is the gateway to the internet and a search advertising behemoth. It has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”
More specifically, the Justice Department takes issue with Google’s various deals that make it the default search engine on other products and platforms, like Apple’s iOS and Mozilla’s Firefox. Google pays these and other companies billions and millions of dollars so that they make it the default search engine, effectively spending sums that other search engines could only dream of and thus outcompeting them by default. This allegedly leads to less competition and potentially worse search results, since Google doesn’t have to focus on improving its product anymore, as would be the case if it was threatened by upstart competitors.
Firefox’s default search engine is Google
Today, these allegations are joined by concerns with the way Google distributes Android in the US, with Google Search also the default search engine. This is a requirement for manufacturers when they want to use Google’s services and the Play Store to their full extent.
In fact, the EU took issue with this mandatory bundle much earlier, with Google long having to provide users with a screen that allows them to select their preferred search engine when they first set up the device, along with allowing manufacturers to ship Android devices both with and without Google services.
Why is this happening?
Google owns about 90 percent of the search market and has a significant grip over many other areas of life. While US regulators used to have a lenient stance when it came to regulating the big US tech industry, things are slowly changing, with the government scrutinizing big companies more heavily.
The lawsuit could only be the first to come from the US government, with more regulatory scrutiny following. There is currently another suitinvestigating Google’s advertising practices, with investigators taking a look at Google owning the full ad tech stack, meaning that it owns both the sell-side and the buy-side, allowing the company to create all the rules.
With this newfound regulatory scrutiny in the US, Google might be in hot waters for more of its business practices in the future. You only need to take a look at the EU and its measures against internet gatekeepers to get a rough idea of what regulators could take issue with.
What are Google’s arguments?
Google denies any wrongdoing in the way it does business. Ahead of the trial, the company published alengthy blog postin response to the allegations.The business arguesthat while it has 90 percent market share, browser and device makers have a choice, and they voluntarily choose Google as the default search engine on their products, with the company citingan interview with Apple CEO Tim Cooksaying that Google is “the best.”
The business argues that while it has 90 percent market share, browser and device makers have a choice, and they voluntarily choose Google as the default search engine on their products.
The same is true for consumers, with Google saying that most people voluntarily switch from Bing to Google on Windows, even if Microsoft makes it unnecessarily difficult for users to make that selection stick. The company also notes that the same was true when Mozilla made a deal with Yahoo a few years ago to have it become the default search engine.
Google says beyond this, people have changed the way they gather information, starting many of their more specific inquiries on TikTok, Amazon, Instagram, Spotify, and more, depending on what they want to find.
What does the lawsuit mean for Google?
The most obvious comparison here is the Microsoft browser trial from the late 90s and early 2000s, in which Microsoft was accused of squashing browser competitors by pre-installing Internet Explorer on Windows and making it hard to install other browsers.
The US government initially won the case, mandating to break up Microsoft into one entity that makes Windows and another that creates other software parts. Only after an appeal and a following settlement was it possible for Microsoft to continue existing in its current form, with the company required to share some of its Windows APIs with other companies and make it easier to build services, with Internet Explorer software bundling no longer an issue.
While the initial Microsoft ruling was drastic, the appeals decision was a lot more forgiving, and it’s entirely possible that a similar outcome is in the books for Google. The Google trial is set for a 10-week period; it will likely take much longer to get through the whole judicial apparatus, with many different options for appeals and settlements. Making matters worse for Google is the fact that the US isn’t looking to give the company a monetary punishment but rather a change of behavior, which could mean a significant change to the way it runs business if the US wins.
It’s very much possible that the trial will bind a lot of Google’s resources when it comes to decision-making and planning. Many people argue that Microsoft lost the mobile operating system wars because it was focused on its antitrust lawsuit, and it’s possible that something similar could happen to Google when it comes to AI. In fact, a bad outcome for Google could stop the company from making search-like exclusive deals when it comes to AI, which could severely hamstring its entry into this market.
What does it mean for you?
Like with any potential monopoly, a negative outcome for Google would likely be good for consumers. An often-cited example is AT&T, which owned the full telephony stack (the Bell System) in the US up until 1982, with a subsidiary also providing and building most of the necessary equipment. The newly opened market and the increasing competition made it possible for innovation and availability to spread much faster, giving us access to more advanced technologies at a lower cost.
Scientists arguethat similar effects could also result from antitrust regulations today, even if it’s an open question whether Google’s grip on Search is really comparable to a monopolist’s grip on vital infrastructure. However, it’s clear that there are rarely cases where a monopoly is better for consumers than competition, at least in today’s capitalist system.
You might get a default search engine selection screen when you set up your Android phone like EU citizens already have for years
In more approachable terms, the lawsuit likely won’t change much for you in the short term. Even if Google is barred from making exclusive deals surrounding its search engine or other products, you will almost certainly still be able to make Google your default search engine across all kinds of products — first and foremost Google’s own, because this ruling wouldn’t change anything about what software the company can put on products of its own, like theGoogle Pixel 7 Proor Chrome. In the long term, it may become much easier to switch to a plainly better or at least more private alternative, though, like it’s already possible in the EU.
Time will tell
As the lengthy legal process is only now starting, it will take some time until we know how things end up. Google could come away almost completely unscathed, but the trial could also just be one of many to come to the company and other big tech businesses. It might be a pivotal judicial moment in our period of time, or it might be a weak attempt at reigning in a global giant.
