top of page

Hey Alexa, Google "Monopoly"

A federal judge has ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in search and text advertising, marking a significant defeat in a high-profile antitrust lawsuit that could reshape the tech giant's business practices.


Google has lost a significant antitrust lawsuit over its search arrangements on smartphone devices, with a federal judge ruling that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly in search and text advertising for the past decade.


In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concluded, "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly." The ruling found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolistic practices.


The case centered on Google's exclusive agreements to secure default search distribution on nearly all desktop and mobile devices in the U.S., including Android phones and Apple's iPhones and iPads. These arrangements were deemed to have strengthened Google's dominance in the search market and stifled competition, according to a report by CNBC.


The lawsuit, which originated from a 2020 complaint by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 38 states and territories, was combined into one case against Google. The U.S. government argued that Google maintained its market share by creating strong barriers to entry and establishing a feedback loop that reinforced its control over the search market.


Experts are now discussing the broader implications of the ruling, including its potential impact on upcoming elections. Ambassador Ken Blackwell, chairman of the Center for Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), called the decision a victory for those seeking free and fair elections. He expressed concern over allegations that Google manipulates search results to influence public opinion on politically sensitive issues, which he considers a form of election interference.


The case is United States v. Google, No. 1:20-cv-3010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Comments


bottom of page