The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a monumental antitrust trial against Google, accusing the tech giant of leveraging its stranglehold on the internet search market to stifle competition and inhibit innovation.
Antitrust Trial: Rigging the Market in Google’s Favor
Over the next ten weeks, federal lawyers and state attorneys general will scrutinize Google’s practices, aiming to establish that the company manipulated the market to favor its search engine as the default choice on various platforms and devices. This alleged market rigging is said to have created an unfair advantage for Google. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will not render a decision until early next year. Should Google be found guilty, a subsequent trial will determine the corrective measures required to curb the influence of this California-based tech giant.
Top executives from Google and Alphabet, its parent company, are expected to testify, with Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai among the potential witnesses. Additionally, court documents suggest that Eddy Cue, a high-ranking Apple executive, may also be called to the stand.
The High Cost of Market Dominance
The heart of the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit revolves around Google’s alleged use of payola, where it annually pays out over $10 billion to secure its position as the default search engine on various platforms, including Apple’s iPhone and popular web browsers like Safari and Firefox. This substantial investment has ensured Google’s unrivaled prominence in internet searches.
According to Kenneth Dintzer, the Department of Justice’s lead litigator, Google’s contracts create a feedback loop that consistently favors the company, ultimately stifling competition. Dintzer contends that this practice has been in place for more than 12 years, cementing Google’s dominance. Additionally, Google is accused of strong-arming Apple into making its search engine the default option on Apple devices as a prerequisite for revenue sharing, allegedly preventing Apple from developing its own search engine.
The trial’s proceedings have unveiled documents suggesting that Google may have deleted certain records and sought to shield others under attorney-client privilege, casting further shadows on its practices. The case bears a striking resemblance to the antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998, which alleged bundling practices that stifled competition in the early days of the internet.
Also read: Google Appeals Against India’s Antitrust Ruling on Android’s Business Practices
