When the US v Google trial kicks off Tuesday, September 12, 2023, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (DC), it will mark just one of what we expect will be a series of trials in the United States challenging the monopoly abuses of Big Tech, including an anticipated trial against Google’s sprawling ad tech monopolies, a case designed by Biden rather than Trump officials, and another against Amazon’s illegal self-preferencing, expected from the FTC any day now. Together, these cases, combined with the ongoing reorientation of government around competition policy, and the leadership of Lina Khan (FTC) and Jonathan Kanter (DOJ), mark the most important surge in antimonopoly policy in 110 years. 

A monopoly of Google’s size, scope, and record of illegal, unfair behavior is a tremendous threat to the American way of life and to the health of the world’s democracies. Never before have we allowed a single private institution to concentrate so much power and control over so many corners of the political economy and over what people see, read, and know. 

Google's illegal abuse of its monopoly power across the digital landscape is finally beginning to see its days in court. Starting September 12th, the US District Court for DC will hear a case from the US Department of Justice that demonstrates how Google has built and used its dominance across the web to control and torpedo competitors, and stifle innovation and choice in the search engine and search advertising markets.  

We hope to hear the Justice Department raise the following important points on how Google unfairly exercises its dominance for Search: 

• Google uses its monopoly power to pay off competitors and companies in adjacent products services in order to dominate and control the search engine market. For instance, Google pays Apple billions of dollars to ensure Google Search is the default on Apple's Safari browser in all its devices. In many cases, Google has specifically prohibited its counterparties from dealing with competing search engines. 

• Google also uses its dominance to extract highly favorable terms from countless companies that depend on its other services. For example, Google requires phone manufacturers that want to use its Android smartphone operating system to make its search engine the default provider for mobile searches. In such agreements, Google also limits manufacturers’ ability to sell Android devices that do not comply with Google’s specific technical and design standards. 

  • According to a House Antitrust Subcommittee report, Google services cover nearly 100 percent of mobile searches. 

  • By owning Android and paying off Apple, Google has extended its search dominance on desktops and laptops to mobile phones, and that data collected through them, all over the world. 

• Google Search also benefits unfairly from Google being one of the main providers of cloud computing and cloud services. 

• Google also uses its search engine to favor its own products and services such as Google Maps, Gmail, YouTube and others, which are also integrated and designed to reinforce Google Search. Further, Google used acquisitions of hundreds of smaller companies in order to build such self-reinforcing networks of internet services. 

  • In 2007, then-Google executive Marissa Mayer admitted that Google intentionally ranked its own services ahead of other sites.  

  • For example, Google was sued for self-preferencing Google Images while disappearing in search its competitors, like Dreamstime. 

• Google’s digital advertising monopolies also fortify its search monopoly, and vice versa, because the data it collects about people refines search results. This feedback loop strongly incentivizes users to stay on Google’s search platform and advertisers to sell ads there, allowing Google to continue collecting data and refine its services further. The same feedback loop exists with Google’s YouTube video algorithm. This feedback loop will only intensify as AI and generative AI develop and become even more ubiquitous.  

 The result of Google’s runaway dominance over online search means less choice for consumers and less innovation of internet services. It prevents companies that offer better or alternate services, including services that avoid targeted advertising and offer greater privacy, from effectively competing.  

It also has grave implications for the health of democracies: a company with so much power shaping what information people in the US and around the world are exposed to on the web – with the ability to manipulate access to that information at will – runs counter to our democratic ideals of public debate, democratic discourse, and freedom of the press.  

In addition to search, Google is also in control of multiple digital advertising monopolies, as US, several US states, and European cases against Google lay out. By consolidating advertising monopolies through antitrust violations, Google has diverted advertising dollars away from traditional news media, weakening their financial sustainability and putting democracy at risk.  

This shift has been hugely detrimental to journalism, distorting journalism’s editorial and business independence and making it more challenging for citizens to access reliable news while increasing the prevalence of disinformation and propaganda in political discourse. Because of Google, we have a less informed populace divided by misinformation, which is in part delivered to them by Google for advertising dollars – a one-two punch to the health of our democracy. 

Google’s years of antitrust violations used to cement its monopoly power and near-total control over many aspects of the digital landscape raise significant concerns about the health and future of democracy in the digital era unless real changes are made. Government lawsuits aimed at addressing these issues are just a few crucial steps of many toward ensuring a more competitive and equitable digital ecosystem in the future. 

###