A federal judge determined that Google abused its already vast resources to fraudulently dominate at least two U.S. research and marketing product markets in a decision that probably has significant implications for the future of several other Large Tech competitive lawsuits.
U. S. District Judge , of the Washington D. C. District Court, Amit Mehta, decided Monday that Google’s attempt to secure exclusive distribution contracts that guaranteed it would be people ‘ default search engine amounts to dominant actions that deserves censure.
The Alphabet tech company broke Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits unfair cartels, by paying device and net browsing companies like Apple and Samsung tens of billions of dollars. This harms the ability of its rivals to gain in both the public search companies and public words advertising sectors.
” After having thoroughly considered and weighed the witness testimony and proof, the jury reaches the next conclusion: Google is a corporation, and it has acted as one to keep its monopoly”, Mehta wrote in the 277-page decision.
The lawsuit, initially brought by former President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice and 11 state prosecutors general , in 2020, alleged that Google, “one of the wealthiest companies on the planet” with a track record of repression, became a “monopoly guardian to the internet for trillions of users and many advertisers worldwide”.
According to a press release from the DOJ,” Google has dominated almost 90 % of all search queries in the United States for years and has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and expand its monopolies in search and search advertising.” Google has entered into a number of exclusionary agreements, as alleged in the complaint, that collectively lock up the main channels through which users access search engines and the internet, by requiring that Google be set to serve as the default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers worldwide and, in some cases, prohibiting the installation of a competitor.
Google’s legal team and CEO Sundar Pichai repeatedly argued during the trial that they merely maintained a competitive advantage over other companies when they went to court. Mehta disagreed, saying that the current system “puts rivals in no position to compete with Google for the increased ad revenue that comes with greater query volume.”
He noted that Google went to great lengths to conceal any conceivable antitrust violations and that he was surprised by how carefully Google avoided making a paper.
regulators and litigants ‘” trail for regulators and litigants,” but the Big Tech company ultimately chose not to impose sanctions.
Mehta also wanted to establish Google’s liability first, so he did n’t immediately state any penalties or remedies for the company’s anticompetitive behavior. He did, however, hint at a remedies trial, which the New York Times warned might force Google” to change the way it runs or to sell off part of its business”.
The Federalist staff writer and host of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jordan Boyd. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordanian completed her political science major at Baylor University and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
