Is it closing time for the Justice Department’s antitrust search suit against Google?
Last week, a federal district court heard closing arguments in the government’s expansive antitrust lawsuit against Google. In the suit, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Colorado and other states allege that Google unlawfully maintains monopolies in the market for general internet searches, mainly through contracts in which computer and mobile device manufacturers agree to set Google’s search engine as the default option. Although forecasting is a perilous game, many of the court’s questions suggest that DOJ has failed to prove that Google violated the antitrust laws.
In any antitrust case, a key question is whether a company’s conduct hurt consumers, usually measured by factors such as price, output, quality and innovation. If the market reflects falling prices and rising output, and if the company is innovating and investing, those facts strongly suggest that consumers are well served, even if the company’s competitors have a hard time attracting new customers.
At the argument, the court signaled that many of these factors point in Google’s favor. For instance, Judge Amit Mehta suggested that Google has been innovating to improve its products and that the government faced a “hard road” to prove otherwise: “Nobody can dispute that search looks much differently now than it did 10-15 years ago. Much of that is attributable to Google.”
Indeed, at trial Google testified that it invests billions every year, and employs 8,000 engineers and product managers, to improve its search engine, including via AI and machine learning. The court noted that Google’s market success stems, at least in part, from its decision to invest earlier and more heavily in its search engine as compared to other companies: “That's not anticompetitive, the fact that Google was smart enough to get on the mobile bandwagon before [others].”
Similarly, the court seemed to agree that Google’s search engine provides a high-quality product. The court noted instances where users switched their default browsers from a competitor to Google and that, during the trial, phone manufacturers testified that they periodically tested search engines, found Google’s better and chose Google as the default because of its quality.
The court asked, “isn't that a reasonable business decision?” As the court further explained, “If I determine that defaults don't give Google an unassailable position, don't you [the government] lose? Have you proven that Google’s defaults are the thing that continues to allow Google to get scale?”
Beyond innovation and quality, the trial evidence also showed, seemingly conclusively, that output is expanding and that prices are falling. Prices for online advertising have fallen 40 percent since 2010, even as the market for digital advertising has expanded greatly. One national retailer, which regularly adjusts paid search spending between Google and competitors, testified that it has “observed declines in cost per click on product listing ads on Google.” A national bank testified that it more than doubled its paid search ads because ad costs and customer acquisition costs have fallen through Google’s search ads.
With strong evidence that quality, innovation and output are increasing, even as prices are falling, and with hints that the court may agree, what’s left of the government’s antitrust lawsuit? As former White House advisor Tim Wu set out, this case is really about industrial policy, specifically the government’s belief that “big is bad” and desire to dictate the number of companies that can compete in a marketplace. At one point in time, bigness alone could trigger antitrust scrutiny, but for the last 40 years, antitrust law has been about protecting consumers, not competitors. On this score, Google looks to be in very good shape.
In any event, for people concerned about online search competition, the best answer is to trust the market, rather than regulators, to improve the consumer experience. In this case, as in many others, regulators are “fighting the last war.” AI, for instance, is already changing the search market, with Google and other companies investing heavily to bring new tools to consumers and to improve the way that they gather information online. Whatever the market looks like today, it will surely change next year and the year after that. So long as the government is not allowed to punish success, Google and other companies will continue to invest, to innovate and to compete vigorously, to the benefit of all.
Asheesh Agarwal is an alumnus of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.
Date: | |
Tag: |
Filter
-
Google Asks for Bench Trial in Antitrust Case in Virginia
The tech giant wants a judge, not a jury, to decide whether it broke antitrust laws and monopolized the technology that powers its lucrative online ad business, mostly because it says the case is too complicated for jurors to follow.Inc. - Business - Google -
Google wants judge, not jury, to decide upcoming antitrust case in Virginia
Google is asking that a federal judge, rather than a jury, decide whether it violated U.S. antitrust laws by building a monopoly on the technology that powers online advertisingABC News - Tech - Google -
Google Search Is Growing Up
This week, we unpack all the news from Google I/O, where we got a glimpse of how the world’s dominant search engine will evolve in the AI era.Wired - Tech - Google
More from The Hill
-
Alice Stewart, CNN political commentator, dead at 58
Alice Stewart, a veteran CNN commentator and a political adviser who has worked on many Republican campaigns, is dead at 58, the network announced Saturday. Her body was found outdoors in a neighborhood in northern Virginia on Saturday, law ...The Hill - Politics -
Stefanik to slam Biden's weapons hold in remarks before Israel's government
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in an address before Israel's Parliament Sunday is expected to denounce President Biden's pause on weapons supply to the country, as it continues its military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Her remarks ...The Hill - Politics - Joe Biden -
Trump urges members to 'be rebellious and vote' after accepting NRA endorsement
Former President Trump urged National Rifle Association (NRA) members to “be rebellious and vote” for him in the 2024 election, after accepting the endorsement from the gun rights advocacy group. Trump pledged to thousands of attendees at NRA’s ...The Hill - Politics - Donald Trump -
Biden urges Atlanta voters to stand up against Trump: 'He's running for revenge'
President Biden during a campaign reception in Atlanta urged his supporters to stand up against former President Trump, as the two party front-runners head toward a rematch in November. Biden in remarks Saturday at Mary Mac's Tea Room, argued that ...The Hill - Politics - Joe Biden -
Ex-Trump attorney on hush money trial visitors: 'Not something that I would be encouraging'
Timothy Parlatore, former President Trump’s ex-attorney, weighed in on the appearance of several political figures at the former president's hush money trial in New York City. Parlatore signaled that the visit from high-profile Republicans — ...The Hill - Politics