In the first few days of a 10-week trial, the government’s strategy to shatter Google’s monopoly on internet search is beginning to take shape.
Initial testimony from four witnesses, as framed by the government’s attorneys, suggests Google has spent the better part of the last two decades lobbying to make its search engine the de facto standard across a wide range of mobile devices, wireless carriers, and online browsers. The U.S. Department of Justice and numerous states are suing the firm for doing this despite its knowledge that it was developing a monopoly and despite the criticism it received from key business partners like Samsung. Google has, however, prevailed in most respects.
The trial will focus on whether or not one of the largest firms in the world is responding to consumer demand. The issue revolves around a series of revenue-sharing arrangements Google has with Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, and others to be the default search engine on web browsers and mobile phones and to control the advertisements that populate search results; these deals are estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars yearly. Google does not share the dollar amounts of the agreements.
On Wednesday and Thursday, a UC Berkeley professor and behavioural economist named Antonio Rangel testified about how Google lobbied to be the default search engine because users are more likely to stick with the pre-installed option rather than go through the lengthy and sometimes onerous process of switching to what could be a better product.
When it comes to making purchases, “defaults are the most common aspect of [consumer] choice architecture,” as stated by Rangel.
According to Rangel, clients stayed with DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, when given the choice.
Meanwhile, Google boasts that it is the go-to search engine because its service is superior, and that users may easily transfer to another option.
Rangel appeared to resist Google’s two-hour grilling, despite the company’s repeated demands that he acknowledge his lack of familiarity with search engines and Google’s commercial contracts. As a result of their confidence in Rangel’s testimony, the DOJ’s attorneys only spent a few minutes asking follow-up questions.
On Thursday, Google executive James Kolotouros testified that the South Korean electronics giant, one of the world’s largest companies, did get some unspecified concessions from Google but was still unsuccessful in keeping Google from being the default search engine.
Both Kolotouros and a Verizon executive are scheduled to testify this coming Friday. Due to the secret nature of Google’s contracts with Samsung and Verizon, most of that testimony will be kept under wraps.
The Department of Justice’s legal team looked deep into the company’s history to demonstrate how Google’s actions have contributed to its dominant market position. Ex-Googler Chris Barton, who worked on search agreement negotiations in the late aughts, testified that having a provision for default exclusivity was crucial.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta disregarded Google’s objections, stating the testimony is “foundational to what comes after.”
As part of a defensive approach, Google’s former top economist Hal Varian suggested in a document from 2003 that the business work to keep users from switching search engines.
“However, antitrust concerns do need to be taken into account. To put it another way, we’re the current market leader, and we’re trying to keep upstarts out of the game.
Corporate America, regulators, MPs, technologists, lobbyists, and a plethora of others are all keeping a careful eye on the trial. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colorado), who has spoken out against the power of Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon, and Tim Wu, who was instrumental in establishing President Joe Biden’s competition policy, both made appearances in the gallery during the first week.
If Google were to lose, the business might undergo a major restructuring, and regulators might feel more confident taking on other digital titans. If Google were to prevail, it might prompt authorities to reevaluate their strategy to taming monopolistic tech firms.
The wait for results could take a long time. Mehta is not likely to issue a ruling until the spring, and the entire trial hinges on the question of whether or not Google broke the law. If a judge rules against Google, a new trial would be needed to decide damages. There will inevitably be a lengthy appeals process.
As the non-jury trial continues into late November, Google will have the chance to present its defence.
