Google Vs US Antitrust Lawsuit: Everything You Need To Know

The trial involving Google, held at the US District Court for the District of Columbia, is expected to span approximately 10 weeks, with a final ruling not expected until sometime in 2024.

The burden lies with the Justice Department to demonstrate that Google's business dealings have harmed competition in the search market.

Source : Getty

In a significant antitrust trial set to kick off in Washington on Tuesday, the US Justice Department, alongside a coalition of state attorneys general, will level accusations against Alphabet's Google, alleging that the tech giant has unlawfully exploited its dominance in the search-engine market to maintain a monopoly grip on power.

Here's a breakdown of the key issues at the heart of the case, as reported by Reuters.

The US government and its state partners contend that Google engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by funnelling billions of dollars to companies like Apple and other business partners. These financial arrangements were designed, according to the government's lawsuit, to secure Google's search engine as the default option on most smartphones and web browsers.

The lawsuit, initially filed in federal court in 2020, argues that these deals were intentionally exclusionary in nature, effectively shutting out competitors from accessing search queries and clicks. This, in turn, allowed Google to further solidify its dominance in the market.

Government estimates suggest that Google has captured a staggering 90% market share in search within the United States in recent years. The government alleges that these browser agreements, responsible for directing billions of web queries to Google each day, have resulted in reduced choices for consumers and stifled innovation.

Google, on the other hand, vehemently contests these allegations. The company asserts that its browser agreements were conducted within the bounds of competition laws, not constituting illicit exclusionary practices.

According to Google, these agreements did not prevent competitors from developing their own search engines, nor did they hinder companies like Apple and Mozilla from promoting alternatives. Google maintains that smartphone and web browser manufacturers opted for Google search as the default because they believed it provided the highest-quality experience for their customers.

Additionally, Google argues that mobile users have the flexibility to switch to another search engine with ease.

The legality of exclusive deals depends on factors such as market power and their impact on competition. While such arrangements are commonplace, they can run afoul of antitrust laws if a company's sheer size or influence hinders rivals from entering the market, without clear benefits for consumers.

The burden lies with the Justice Department to demonstrate that Google's business dealings have harmed competition in the search market. Google will have an opportunity to present its case after the government concludes its arguments, asserting that its deals ultimately benefit consumers.

The US government and its state partners are not seeking monetary penalties; instead, they aim to secure an injunction to prohibit Google from continuing its alleged anticompetitive actions.

The ramifications of such an injunction could be substantial for Google. For instance, the government's lawsuit suggests that the court may consider breaking up the company as a potential solution.

In a broader context, the Justice Department might argue that it seeks to prevent Google from leveraging its alleged search monopoly to broker exclusive deals in emerging markets, including artificial intelligence.

This case is widely regarded as one of the most significant challenges to the power of the tech industry since the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Microsoft in 1998, which revolved around its dominance in the personal computer market. In that case, the trial court ruled that Microsoft had unlawfully attempted to stifle the rival browser Netscape Navigator, eventually leading to a settlement that preserved Microsoft's intact corporate structure.

The trial involving Google, held at the US District Court for the District of Columbia, is expected to span approximately 10 weeks, with a final ruling not expected until sometime in 2024.

US District Judge Amit Mehta, who assumed the bench in 2014 following a career as a private lawyer in Washington, will preside over the case. Mehta has overseen several major antitrust disputes, including the blocking of Sysco Corp's merger with US Foods in 2015, and more recently, the trial of Peter Navarro, a former adviser to Donald Trump, who was convicted of contempt of Congress. In May, Mehta sentenced Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, to 18 years in prison for his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.