Tag Archives: monopoly

“Slap on the Wrist”: Critics Blast Lenient Penalties for Google Following Landmark Monopoly Trial

Posted on by
Reply

On Tuesday, the judge ruled that Google would not be required to sell its Chrome browser or Android operating system, a decision that shields the tech giant from the most severe penalties the US government has pursued. This same judge previously sided with US prosecutors nearly a year ago, determining that Google has established and continued an illegal monopoly over its namesake search engine.

Critics of Google’s dominance in the internet search and online advertising arena are outraged. They contend that the judges failed to implement significant reforms in an industry that has been stifled under the immense pressures of leading competitors. Conversely, groups within the tech industry and investors are feeling optimistic. Since Tuesday afternoon, shares of Google’s parent company Alphabet have surged by 9%.

Judge Amit Mehta mandated that Google share data with its competitors and its various search engines. Furthermore, he ordered the company to establish or sustain exclusive agreements for the distribution of its products, such as Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. This penalty does not inhibit payment to distributors like Apple or Mozilla, which utilize Google as their default search engine. Google is also facing another hearing later this year regarding its monopoly in online advertising technology.

The Department of Justice heralded the ruling on Tuesday in a press release, calling Mehta’s suggested remedy “crucial.”

“Today, the court’s decision acknowledges the necessity for a remedy to rejuvenate the market for popular search services that has remained stagnant for over a decade,” the statement indicated.

Free market advocates argue, however, that the measures are insufficient.

Critics argue the judge granted Google a lenient victory

Mehta’s verdict has prompted substantial backlash from leading technology critics who have been observing antitrust laws for years. Many organizations and advocacy groups have long advocated for breaking up Google’s exclusive tactics, asserting that robust measures are essential to restoring genuine competition.


Instead of fostering an open online search industry, critics argue that while removing some of Google’s advantages, Big Tech sets a precedent indicating that serious repercussions for legal violations are not to be feared.

“For years, Google has been competing across all facets of the digital economy, overpowering its rivals, stalling innovation, and denying Americans their rights to read, view, and purchase without manipulation by one of the most potent corporations in history,” stated Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute ThinkTank. “The Mehta Order requiring Google to share its search data with competitors and cease exclusive agreements will do little to rectify those issues. It seems that even serious legal violations result in mere wrist slaps.”

Some organizations and analysts have reservations about Mehta’s ruling that Google maintained an illegal monopoly, suggesting that a more favorable decision may be filed this week.

“I would ask him to send a thank-you note to the robbers after finding someone guilty of robbing a bank,” remarked Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the nonprofit American Economic Freedom Project.

Several prominent tech leaders, including Yelp, DuckDuckGo, and Epic Games’ CEOs, criticized the decision, claiming it fails to level the playing field for their competitors. Both Yelp and Epic Games are engaged in legal actions against Google concerning antitrust issues, while DuckDuckGo’s CEO testified during the government’s antitrust trial against the search giant.

“It appears that the accused have committed a string of bank robberies, and the court’s decision has found them guilty and placed them on probation, allowing them to continue robbing banks but requiring them to share data on how the robbery works,” remarked Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, drawing on the bank robbery analogy.

Democrats advocating for stricter regulations on big tech companies have similarly condemned the ruling, with some calling for the Department of Justice to appeal the decision.

“The court previously determined that Google’s search operations constituted an illegal monopoly, but now the judge’s remedies do not hold Google accountable for violating the law,” stated Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren in a statement. “Instead of reinstating competition and curtailing Google’s dominance, this ruling serves as a mere wrist slap for illegal behavior that ensures this tech giant remains intact.”

The chairs of the Monopoly Busters Caucus—US Representatives Chris Deluzio, Pramila Jayapal, Pat Ryan, and Angie Craig—issued a statement condemning the ruling as a “wrist slap,” arguing it undermines bipartisan efforts to tackle tech monopolies.

“This ruling effectively permits Google to retain its monopoly. Despite Google’s illegal actions regarding its search monopoly, the courts are allowing it to keep Chrome and Android, which are essential tools for Google’s market control,” the Caucus asserted.

Human rights organization Amnesty International also expressed outrage at the decision, highlighting that Google’s business model is fundamentally flawed. They emphasized that Chrome is a critical tool utilized for collecting personal data from Google users.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“Google’s infringement on the search industry and the imposition of a sale on Chrome could have signaled the initial step toward a digital landscape that respects our rights,” stated Agnès Callamard, executive director of Amnesty International.

Silicon Valley and Wall Street celebrate

The tech sector rejoiced while antitrust advocates lamented the verdict. Industry groups stated that Mehta’s ruling prevented a potential disaster for Silicon Valley. The Developers’ Alliance, a high-tech industry group, praised the judge for rejecting the severe structural relief sought by the Justice Department.

“The sale of Chrome and Android would have had catastrophic implications for web and app developers and the broader digital ecosystem,” the group stated. “Developers are relieved that this trial’s political theatrics have reached a conclusion.”

Another industry organization, the Consumer Choice Center, supported Google’s claim that its products are superior, justifying its market control. Stephen Kent, the group’s media director, likened the Justice Department’s “politicized incident” to a larger player enjoying popularity due to offering superior products rather than competing apps and services.

Many of these organizations referenced Mehta’s assertion that, over the years, Google has given rise to technically viable competitors within Chrome. “This new reality illustrates that if a strong competitor arises, Google should not be expected to outweigh them in distribution,” the judge’s ruling indicated.

“The debate around search engine market shares is particularly relevant in light of the dramatic and significant advancements in AI that are reshaping the landscape,” remarked the Developer Alliance.

Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow at the Libertarian Think Tank The Cato Institute, advised careful consideration, emphasizing that “innovation often remains our best competitive strategy.”

“The month between the initial ruling and the remedial decision underscores the rapid changes occurring in the tech industry,” Huddleston noted. “This is especially true considering the transformative nature of AI technologies in search. As Judge Mehta points out, courts must not only analyze historical facts but also forecast the future in a swiftly evolving market.”

Apple also experienced a boost, with Google’s stock rebounding following Mehta’s ruling. Historically, the iPhone manufacturer has received billions from Google annually, as Google serves as the default search engine for its devices. The arrangements between the two companies account for approximately 15% of Apple’s operating profits. Shares have risen nearly 4% since Tuesday.

“We’ve been eager to get started,” wrote Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, on X.

Critics of the ruling are not surprised that Wall Street has responded positively to Mehta’s decision. “There’s a reason Google stock skyrocketed following this ruling,” stated Christo Wilson, a professor of Computer Science at Northeastern University, who led a team that studied Google’s monopolistic practices in search. “This represents a historic failure to address the significant evidence that Google is an online search monopoly.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

US v. Google: Key Arguments from Both Sides in the Search Monopoly Hearing

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last three weeks, the Department of Justice and Google have questioned over 20 witnesses in an effort to influence a federal judge’s ruling regarding the company’s unlawful monopoly in internet searches.

The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday is anticipated to yield conclusions. To address the monopoly, the government has proposed robust measures, such as divesting Google of its widely-used Chrome web browser and obliging it to share its own data with competitors. Google contends that minor adjustments to its business practices would be more effective.

Both parties are set to present their closing arguments at the end of the month. Judge Amit P. Meta, who presides over the case, is expected to make a decision by August. His ruling could significantly impact how Google, its competitors, and users search for information online.

Here’s what you need to know about the discussions during the hearing:

In August, Judge Mehta ruled that Google breached antitrust laws by paying billions to companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla to ensure its status as the default search engine on browsers and smartphones. He also found that Google’s monopoly could inflate certain search ad prices and create unfair advantages.

Last month, Judge Meta held a hearing to explore the best strategies for addressing search monopolies through a measure known as treatment. Executives from Google, competing search engines, and AI firms, along with experts, provided testimony regarding Google’s dominance on the Internet.

Government lawyers claimed that the only effective way to dismantle Google’s search monopoly is through decisive action.

They argued that Google should be compelled to spin off Chrome and share search results and ads with its competitors, enabling them to subscribe to their search engines. Other search engines and some AI firms require access to data regarding what Google users search for and the sites they visit.

During the hearing, the government cautioned that if Judge Meta does not act, Google could gain control over another technology, artificial intelligence. Searches may become chaotic as AI and chatbots transform the way users seek information online, similar to Google’s Gemini.

“The court’s remedy should be forward-looking and take into account future developments,” stated David Dalkist, the lead government attorney. “Google is employing the same strategies with Gemini that they once used for search.”

“It’s the first time in over 20 years in the last two months,” remarked Eddy Cue, an Apple executive who testified against Google. He linked this decline to the rise of AI.

Google’s attorneys contended that the government’s proposals could jeopardize products that consumers rely on for privacy and security during their online activities.

“There could certainly be many unintended consequences,” testified Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO.

The disclosure of Google data to competitors would compromise user privacy, the company’s attorneys claimed. They referenced incidents from 2006 when AOL released search data for research purposes, leading journalists to identify individuals through their searches.

They also noted that competition in AI is robust.

Instead, Google’s legal team suggested that web browsers and smartphone manufacturers should grant more freedom to competing search and AI services. Pichai testified that Google has already adjusted its contracts with other entities in line with the case’s proposals.

(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and its partner Microsoft over copyright infringement concerning news content related to AI systems, which they denied.)

During the hearing, several of Google’s competitors, including those from OpenAI and Chatbot Company, indicated they would consider purchasing Chrome if it were put up for sale. Government witnesses stated that access to Google’s search and advertising data would be beneficial for AI companies aiming to compete with Google.

When Judge Meta posed questions to the witnesses throughout the hearing, he offered insight into his perspective.

At times, he encouraged witnesses to discuss whether rivals could effectively compete with Google’s search dominance without court intervention.

Many of his inquiries focused on AI and its significance. Google competes against its rivals and has developed technology that has become a major influence in the tech industry.

When Pichai took the stand, Judge Meta mentioned he had noted the swift advancement of AI since the case commenced in the fall of 2023, highlighting his awareness of how technological developments have shaped the context of the hearing.

“One of the things that Pichai impressed upon me in these cases was that when we met long ago, consistent testimonies from witnesses indicated the combined AI and search impacts had been separate for years. By the time we convened today, the landscape had changed dramatically.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

The US Alleges Meta has Established a Social Media Monopoly

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Trade Commission on Monday accused Meta of creating a monopoly that robbed the competition by buying startups that were on the road, and by launching a groundbreaking antitrust trial that could dismantle a social media empire that changed the way the world connects online.

In a packed courtroom in the District of Columbia, the FTC launched its first anti-trust trial under the Trump administration by claiming that Meta illegally solidified its social networking monopoly when Instagram and WhatsApp were small startups. These actions were part of a “buyer or boring strategy,” the FTC said.

Ultimately, the purchase combined the power of meta, robbing consumers of other social networking options and pulling away the competition, the government said.

“For over 100 years, American public policy has argued that businesses must compete if they want to succeed,” Daniel Matheson, the lead FTC litigant in the case, said in his opening remarks. “The reason we’re here is because Meta broke the deal.”

“They decided that it was too difficult to compete and it would be easier to buy a rival than to compete with them,” he added.

The Trials – Federal Trade Commission vs. Metaplatform – poses the most consequential threat to the business empire of the company’s co-founder Mark Zuckerberg. If the government is successful, the FTC could ask Meta to sell Instagram and WhatsApp, shift the way Silicon Valley does business and change the long pattern of big tech companies that snapped their younger rivals.

Still, legal experts warned that the FTC might be difficult to win. That’s because we have to prove something that the government doesn’t know. This is because Meta, previously known as Facebook, would not achieve the same success without the acquisition. Also, legal experts said it is very rare to unlock a merger that was approved several years ago.

“One of the hardest things antitrust laws are when industry leaders buy small potential competitors,” said Gene Kimmelman, a former senior official at the Obama Administration Department. Meta said, “I bought a lot of things that weren’t pan-out or integration-integrated. How is Instagram and WhatsApp different?

This effort continues a long-standing bipartisan pursuit to reduce the vast power that a small number of high-tech companies have beyond commercial, exchange of ideas, entertainment and political discourse. Despite attempts by tech executives to President Trump, his antitrust appointees have shown they will continue on the course.

The FTC’s case against Meta is the third major technological antitrust lawsuit to be tried in the last two years. Last year, DOJ won antitrust laws against Google because it monopolized internet search. The federal judge will hear debate over the relief package, including a potential dissolution next week. DOJ also completed another exam against Google to monopolize AD technology, which is still decided by a federal judge.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Justice Department argues in court filing that Google must sell Chrome to end search monopoly

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. prosecutors have told a judge that Alphabet Inc.’s Google should take steps to end its monopoly on Internet search by selling off its Chrome browser and sharing data and search results with competitors.

This would result in a decade of heightened regulation for Google, as ruled by a Washington federal court that found the company maintained an illegal monopoly on online search and related advertising.

Google currently controls about 90% of the online search market.

In a court filing, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) stated, “Google’s illegal conduct not only deprived competitors of important distribution channels but also hindered their entry into these markets through new and innovative ways, eliminating potential distribution partners.”

The recently filed court papers further detail the U.S. government’s plan to break Google’s monopoly, which Google considers radical and harmful to American consumers and businesses.

Google intends to appeal the proposal.

The Justice Department’s demands include prohibiting Google from rejoining the browser market for five years and potentially requiring the sale of its Android mobile OS if competition is not restored through other means.

Additionally, the department seeks to prevent Google from acquiring or investing in search rivals, query-based artificial intelligence products, or advertising technology.

The Justice Department and a group of states have asked U.S. District Judge Amit to terminate Google’s exclusive contracts paying Apple and other device vendors to make its search engine the default option on tablets and smartphones.

Google will have an opportunity to present its counterproposal in December, with a trial scheduled for April, subject to potential interference by President-elect Donald Trump and the Justice Department’s incoming antitrust chief.

Source: www.theguardian.com

US Authorities Reportedly Considering Breaking Up Google After Ruling of Illegal Monopoly

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department is weighing various options, including the breakup of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, with a reported market capitalization of approximately $2 trillion, following a court ruling that tech giants monopolized the online search market illegally. The New York Times and Bloomberg News.

According to reports, one of the potential remedies frequently discussed by Justice Department lawyers is the sale of the Android operating system.

Authorities are also reportedly exploring options such as forcing the sale of Google’s search advertising program, AdWords, and its Chrome web browser.

A spokesman for the Justice Department stated that they are assessing the court’s decision and will determine the appropriate next steps in compliance with the court’s directives and applicable antitrust laws.

No decision has been made yet, as per a spokesman, and Google declined to comment. Google intends to appeal the ruling and faces a separate antitrust trial filed by the Department of Justice next month.

Other potential measures being considered by the Justice Department include mandating Google to share data with competitors and implementing safeguards to prevent unfair advantages with its AI products, according to sources familiar with the matter.

In the recent trial outcome, it was revealed that Google had paid over $26 billion in 2021 to secure agreements with companies like Apple to maintain its search engine as the default option on Safari, leading to monopoly allegations and anti-competitive practices, as ruled by the judge.

Following the judge’s ruling, rival search engine DuckDuckGo proposed banning exclusive agreements of this nature.

The ruling, issued last week, found Google in violation of antitrust laws and spending billions to establish an illegal monopoly that cemented its position as the global default search engine. This ruling marks a significant win for federal regulators challenging the dominance of tech giants in the market.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

In the last four years, federal antitrust regulators have sued Meta Platforms Inc., Amazon.com Inc., and Apple Inc. for allegedly maintaining monopolies unlawfully.

In 2004, Microsoft reached a settlement with the Department of Justice over claims that it compelled Windows users to use its Internet Explorer web browser.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Google found guilty of breaking laws to maintain online search monopoly in US court

Posted on by
Reply

On Monday, a federal judge ruled that Google violated antitrust laws while establishing its dominant position in the internet search industry. This ruling could have significant ramifications for how people engage with the internet.

Judge Amit Mehta determined that Google had breached Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a US antitrust law, by monopolizing search services and advertising.

The ruling declared Google a monopoly that had used its dominance to maintain its grip on the market. It is a major antitrust ruling that comes after a case involving the Justice Department and one of the world’s largest companies.

The trial, which started in September last year, concluded without a jury after an extensive period of deliberation by Judge Mehta. The ruling highlighted the importance of the case for both Google and the general public.

Google’s international operations president, Kent Walker, announced plans to appeal the decision, emphasizing aspects of the ruling that praised Google’s search engine while denouncing its accessibility to competitors.

Judge Mehta described the trial as “remarkable” and commended the quality of the legal teams on both sides. The ruling was hailed as a historic victory for the American people by US Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The ruling highlighted Google’s distribution agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung to make it the default search engine on their devices, giving Google an unfair advantage over competitors. The ruling did not specify the penalties Google might face for violating antitrust laws.

Google’s defense argued that the company serves consumers better than its rivals like Microsoft’s Bing. The trial also raised concerns about Google’s record-retention policies and the deletion of internal communications.

New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the ruling as a victory against unchecked corporate power. The tech giant still faces another antitrust lawsuit later this year focusing on its advertising practices.

Google has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the ruling.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Apple faces full-scale lawsuit from US over alleged smartphone market monopoly

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. government initiated a significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, alleging that the tech giant impeded competition by limiting access to its software and hardware. The lawsuit challenges Apple’s core products and practices, including iMessage and the interconnectivity of iPhone and Apple Watch.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, asserts that Apple holds monopolistic power in the smartphone market and engages in “pervasive, persistent, and unlawful” conduct to maintain its dominance. It seeks to “free the smartphone market” from Apple’s anti-competitive behavior and claims that the company stifles innovation.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated, “Apple’s illegal conduct has helped them remain in power, threatening the free and fair markets essential to our economy.”

The Department of Justice’s case against Apple is a significant legal action against the world’s most valuable publicly traded company. It follows similar antitrust cases targeting major tech firms like Amazon, Meta, and Google, which have faced scrutiny for consolidating power and stifling competition.

Apple denies the allegations, arguing that the lawsuit jeopardizes their core business and principles that set their products apart in a competitive market.

The lawsuit questions whether Apple’s practices of limiting rivals’ access to proprietary features like iMessage and Siri constitute anti-competitive behavior. It investigates whether Apple’s closed ecosystem creates unreasonable barriers for competitors.

The complaint accuses Apple of anti-competitive actions such as blocking innovative apps, restricting third-party digital wallets, and limiting cross-platform messaging. These actions allegedly inhibit competition and increase prices for consumers.

The lawsuit aims to change Apple’s practices and impose fines for their actions. It seeks to prevent Apple from strengthening its monopoly and using its app store and private APIs to hinder cross-platform technology distribution.

Apple, as a dominant force in the smartphone market, has faced criticism for its closed ecosystem. Rival companies view Apple’s features as creating a walled garden that limits consumer choice and competition.

The lawsuit highlights Apple’s clash with startup Beeper, which attempted to enable non-iPhone users to access iMessage. Beeper’s struggles with Apple exemplify the challenges faced by smaller competitors against tech giants.

The legal action against Apple is part of a broader crackdown on anticompetitive behavior by major tech companies. Regulators in both the U.S. and Europe have been investigating and pursuing cases against tech giants to promote fair competition.

European regulators, in particular, have fined Apple for anti-competitive practices. The investigation stemmed from complaints that Apple’s restrictions on its app store harmed other music streaming providers.

Source: www.theguardian.com