Google’s Antitrust Victory: What’s Next for Rivals?

A New Era for Search? Google’s Monopoly Ruling and the Battle for Remedies

The internet as we know it may be on the cusp of significant change. On August 5th, 2024, a landmark decision was handed down in the US Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Google, with a federal judge declaring the search giant an illegal monopoly. While this victory for Google’s rivals like Yelp and DuckDuckGo is a momentous step, the real battle has just begun: the fight for effective remedies.

The judge’s ruling found that Google violated the Sherman Act by engaging in exclusionary contracts with phone and browser makers to maintain its default search engine position. This liability phase of the lawsuit established Google’s wrongdoing, but the next stage – the remedies phase – will determine the true impact of the decision. It is during this phase, starting in September, that the judge will grapple with the difficult task of restoring competition in the general search services and search text advertising markets.

The stakes are high. While the initial ruling is a victory for competition, a weak remedy could simply allow Google to maintain its dominance with minimal changes. Google’s competitors are acutely aware of this, emphasizing the need for robust and effective remedies that will genuinely level the playing field.

Lessons from Europe?

DuckDuckGo serves as a cautionary example. Despite the European Union’s earlier ruling against Google and introduction of a choice screen meant to empower users to select their default search engine, the impact has been less dramatic than hoped. Google remains overwhelmingly dominant, highlighting the challenges of implementing truly effective remedies.

DuckDuckGo’s CEO, Kamyl Bazbaz, emphasizes the importance of implementation details and the need for independent oversight. He argues that a choice screen should appear periodically, not just during initial device setup, and that “dark pattern” pop-ups, designed to steer users back to Google, should be explicitly prohibited.

Furthermore, DuckDuckGo proposes prohibiting Google from purchasing default search status or pre-installation, which would directly target its multibillion-dollar deal with Apple, and pushing for open access to its search and ad APIs. This access would empower competitors to develop integrated services that could compete more effectively.

Other voices seeking change

Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman echoes the call for impactful remedies, advocating for a “spin-off” of services benefiting unfairly from Google’s search monopoly. This structural remedy would directly address Google’s ability to leverage its search dominance to benefit other business lines. He also advocates for a ban on exclusive default search deals and Google’s practice of “self-preferencing” its own content in search results.

Digital Content Next, which represents online publishers, argues for a more drastic solution: separating Google’s Chrome and Android businesses. They believe that the data collected from these platforms, which fuels Google’s search dominance, should be restricted.

The American Economic Liberties Project agrees, emphasizing that such a separation would “open up competition for alternative search rivals on Chrome or Android.”

The shadow of AI

Further complicating the situation is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI). While the current remedies focus on existing search structures, AI could fundamentally shift the landscape of search in the near future.

Solutions such as requiring Google to open access to its large language model (LLM) might be explored to ensure a more equitable ecosystem.

Jonathan Kanter, the Department of Justice’s antitrust chief, has expressed a preference for structural remedies, like break-ups, over behavioral mandates. If the DOJ pursues a more radical approach, it could fundamentally reshape the tech landscape.

A glimpse into the future

Yelp CEO, Stoppelman, believes the judge’s decision, if properly enforced, could be as transformative as the Microsoft antitrust case of 1998. That case paved the way for a surge of innovation and new technologies, and some believe this Google ruling could spark a similar wave of creativity and disruption.

The road ahead is undeniably complex, marked by legal challenges and the potential for Google to appeal the ruling. But with the judge’s decision as a starting point, the fight for a more competitive and equitable search landscape has begun. The battle for effective remedies will determine whether the internet remains dominated by a single powerful player, or becomes a truly open and diverse platform for the future.

Article Reference