Even from the far reaches of the globe, the prominence of Google is unmistakable. However, behind that seemingly simple search bar is an empire that the US Justice Department is currently challenging, in what is being termed as one of the most significant antitrust trials in recent years.
Contrary to expectations, crowds were reportedly sparse on the opening morning of the case. However, there was in attendance one man dressed as Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly, under the guise of providing comic relief as a “fellow billionaire”, and to emphasise the power of Google’s quasi-monopoly.
What’s the contention?
Essentially, the US government alleges that from around 2010, Google began implementing anti-competitive strategies to ensure its dominance in the search engine realm. The Justice Department is keen to present the case as one that determines the very future of the internet, questioning if Google’s search supremacy will ever be effectively challenged.
Drawing on lessons from past cases, such as the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in the 1990s, the US Justice Department aims to underline the distinction between healthy competition and monopolistic dominance.
Google’s defence
Google counters these allegations by asserting that it simply stands as a product of its own excellence. In their view, preventing Google from competing won’t make its competitors perform better. The tech giant further asserts that its partnerships, like those with Apple and Mozilla, are beneficial for the broader ecosystem.
One intriguing element of the case is Google’s careful linguistic choices. The Justice Department pointed out how Google officials deliberately avoided terminology that might signal monopolistic ambitions, such as “market share”, opting for more neutral phrasings like “query share”.
The essence of defaults
Central to the US government’s case is Google’s emphasis on being the “default” option. They point to Google’s partnerships and business strategies that prioritise being the first-choice or pre-loaded search engine on devices. Google rebuts this, however, by arguing that these tactics simply represent standard competitive practices.
Global consumer impact
For many watching from outside the US, the intriguing aspect of the trial is its potential to redefine how we perceive “consumer harm” in the digital age. While services like Google Search come at no direct cost, questions arise: are users suffering from diminished quality or lack of choices? Moreover, there’s the global advertiser community to consider. As they are the primary revenue source for Google Search, the implications of this trial have vast international significance.
This case will continue to unfold over the coming months. Testimonies from tech magnates, including Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Eddy Cue, are anticipated. The pivotal matter, however, remains: can a free product like Google’s search engine actually be deemed detrimental to consumers?
James Browning is a freelance tech writer and local music journalist.
BUSINESS REPORT