Google’s in the Dock, What Next?

A federal judge’s recent antitrust ruling against Google over its monopolistic practice around search told us what we already knew, but what it didn’t tell us is how competition would be restored in a system that the court described as an illegal monopoly. What’s interesting and contrary to expectation is that Google rivals have been muted in their response. 

Of course, during the case argued before Judge Amit Mehta at the United States District Court of Columbia, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had testified last October that the idea of users shifting from one search engine to another was “completely bogus” and that “defaults were the only thing that mattered in changing search behavior.”

For all practical purposes, Judge Mehta concurred while delivering a lengthy ruling that called Google a “monopolist” while noting that it had violated the US antitrust law, specifically related to Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Judge said Google illegally maintained a monopoly in search by paying companies to make it the default for search.  

What do smaller rivals have to say in the matter?

However, the smaller rivals such as DuckDuckGo and Yelp were guarded in their responses. And the reasons aren’t tough to fathom. While the ruling stated the obvious, what needs to be clarified is how the court or its emissaries or regulators would go about actually restoring competition. Judge Mehta needs to now state what this would entail. 

Make no mistake, there are several options available, some of which, though hypothetical, were brought up in our earlier piece on the topic (read the full story). Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman summed it up in a single line of his blog post: “While we are heartened by the decision, a strong remedy is critical.” 

In a parallel statement, senior VP of public affairs at DuckDuckGo Kamyl Bazbaz too labelled the ruling as just a milestone with a lot of history still to be written.  “Google will do anything it can to get in the way of progress which is why we hope to see a robust remedies trial that can really dig into all the details, propose an array of remedies that will actually work, and set up a monitoring body to administer them,” the statement said. 

What should the Judge do next?

Having determined that Google violated the law via exclusionary contracts with phone browser makers to maintain default status, what Judge Mehta does next would define whether competition in search and text advertising is restored or not. If the solution is weak, Google will simply ignore it and move on. 

Readers would recall how the company was ruled a monopolist in the European Union some years back with the suggested remedy of a “choice screen” that allowed users to select their default search engine. This attempt to create competition produced little impact as Google continues to rule the roost. 

What matters is implementation, say the rivals

Bazbaz articulates it in the statement underscoring how implementation details matter and how Google found it relatively easy to work around solutions proffered by the EU courts. In fact, DuckDuckGo is seeking a group of “truly independent” technical experts to monitor the remedies imposed by the court to ensure Google doesn’t slip away again. 

For example, the company says the EU’s solution of showing a choice screen periodically could generate a favourable impact for competitors. They also sought a ban on “dark pattern” pop-ups that is known to push users back towards the default. These weren’t enforced in the EU and DuckDuckGo hopes it would be different in the US. 

Of course, rivals hold the view that the court should bar Google from seeking default status on devices and browsers by paying for it, nor should they be allowed to pre-install as part of factory settings. It remains to be seen whether Judge Mehta hits them where it hurts as Google stands to lose a multibillion dollar deal with Apple if these steps are taken. 

However, Stoppelman believes that tinkering would not really help revive competition in a domain that Google has straddled for over a decade now. The Yelp boss thinks Google must spin-off services from which they benefitted unfairly. He calls this a “straightforward and enforceable remedy to prevent anti-competitive behavior.”

As with BazBaz, Stoppelman too believes that Google must not be allowed to use exclusive default search deals. However, he doesn’t stop there and says in his blog that “self-preferencing of their own content in search results” must also be stopped. Wonder what would happen then to Google’s AdWords program?

Breaking it up is the only option, but will the judge agree?

There have been other suggestions too around how the judge should take the case forward. Separating the Chrome and Android businesses would be a true solution, some said as data from these are used to expand the scale of search queries, making them stronger. Of course, all of this would only ensure that the legal process will be a long-drawn one. 

Already, Google has confirmed that it plans to appeal the ruling, claiming that it the Judge had recognized that Google was the best search engine, but concluded that it shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available. Quite obviously, Google thinks that it is a boon to humankind and everybody must have access to it as a fundamental right!