Big Tech Antitrust Trials

In a new report from the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Alissa Cooper, Jasper van den Boom, and Zander Arnao examine how to make remedies most effective in the Google Search antitrust case. They argue that restoring competition in online search requires a comprehensive package of remedies that takes into account the multiple levers by which Google Search built, maintains, and could rebuild its monopoly.

Steven C. Salop writes that only Google’s full divestiture of its Android operating system can avoid incentives on the part of Android and Google to preference Google’s apps, including its search engine, and stifle competition.

Over the past four years, antitrust scrutiny has increasingly focused on large technology firms. Ginger Zhe Jin and Liad Wagman discuss the complexities of antitrust enforcement and policy in the digital age, highlighting the challenges of promoting innovation while fostering competition, and areas where consumer protection and antitrust are colliding or are set to collide. To that end, the authors identify several key questions that the next administration of the United States should address to better delineate between legal and illegal competitive practices in the digital age, with implications for the broader economy.

Steve Salop explores the basis for warranting strong remedies in the Google Search case and the set of remedies Judge Amit Mehta might consider for restoring competition in the search market by jump-starting the competitive process.

On September 10, the highest judicial authority in the EU, the Court of Justice, will rule on Google Shopping, closing a case opened 15 years ago and instrumental in changing the narrative on Big Tech. Christian Bergqvist summarizes the history of Google Shopping and discusses its possible outcomes.

Erik Hovenkamp reviews the findings of Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling against Google for monopolizing the internet search market and discusses what the case will mean for the other ongoing Big Tech cases and the future of antitrust.

A United States federal court has found Google in breach of the Sherman Act by pursuing default status for Google Search and Google Chrome. However, Google's motives and the precise ways in which Google Search’s default status serves its interests remain poorly understood by the public and the antitrust community. They pertain to preventing users from migrating to competitors’ offerings in general and, in particular, to capturing user migration to next-generation platforms to access and search the internet. Understanding this motive will be essential in the calibration of forthcoming remedies and provide lessons for future cases against Google and other tech companies also confronted with user migration.

According to a poll conducted by ProMarket at the Stigler Center Antitrust and Competition Conference, experts were skeptical about the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple, with 54% believing it had the lowest odds among the five Big Tech antitrust cases of a ruling in favor of the government. In contrast, the experts were more optimistic about the government's chances in the Google AdTech case, with 52% saying it had the best odds for a government win, and another 21% favoring the Google Search case.

Fiona Scott Morton and David Dinielli show how landmark antitrust cases historically have cleared the path for innovation in the next “frontier technology.” But with closing arguments in the search monopoly case just days away, Google threatens to evade this round of rigorous new competition. It reportedly is in talks to place its own artificial intelligence tool on Apple devices as it did in the case of search. Such a maneuver would entrench Google’s search monopoly and place Google in the driver’s seat to steer the development of consumer-facing AI. The authors offer up a menu of steps the government might take now to thwart Google’s new anticompetitive strategy and preserve competition in AI before it’s too late.

At the heart of the government’s lawsuit against Apple is if the tech company’s practices of tying and refusing to deal truly enhance the performance and security of the iPhone and its ancillary services. The complaint indicates that the outcome of the case will be determined by the consumer welfare standard, writes Herbert Hovenkamp.