In a potent legal development, US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta has ruled that Google LLC violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the internet search and search advertising markets. This ruling represents a triumph for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and State Attorneys General who have long pursued claims against Google for its market dominance. Mehta’s decision found that Google employed various unlawful practices to sustain its monopoly, notably by paying billions to other tech giants like Apple and Samsung to set its search engine as the default on devices, thus stifling competition and inflating prices for search ads.
Mehta articulated in his ruling, “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” Following the judgment, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland hailed the verdict as a “historic win for the American people,” affirming the DOJ’s commitment to rigorously enforcing antitrust laws. Garland’s full response can be read in a press release.
Google has signaled its intent to appeal the ruling. Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, highlighted portions of the judgment that acknowledged Google’s principal argument that its search engine achieved market superiority due to its quality. Google also contended that their search contracts with competitors were non-exclusionary. However, Mehta rejected this argument, stating that these contracts inhibited other companies from developing their own search engines.
This decision follows a series of actions by the DOJ against Google. In January 2023, federal antitrust complaints were filed, alongside other civil antitrust complaints in 2020 and April 2022. Google has also faced a lawsuit over its Google Maps monopoly and acquisition of Waze. An additional antitrust trial focusing on Google’s advertising technology monopoly is set to begin in Virginia later this year.
For more detailed coverage and ongoing updates, please refer to the original article on JURIST.