Google Search

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.

Herbert Hovenkamp applauds the Biden administration’s antitrust authorities for intervening in labor markets and more robustly challenging mergers between competitors. However, the next administration should clarify in its guidance that the objective of stronger antitrust enforcement must focus on lowering prices, increasing output, and removing any restraints on innovation.

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.

Utsav Gandhi discusses the findings of the May 2024 Google SEO leak, which gave analysts a novel, albeit speculative, look into how Google might choose to promote and demote content. The findings have possible implications for businesses and news organizations struggling to compete for views and suggest that transparency could become an increasing factor in the future search market as new, artificial intelligence-powered competitors enter the market.

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.

Judge Amit Mehta's ruling declaring Google a monopolist in search represents a significant development in the ongoing debate about Big Tech's market dominance. This decision, stemming from a United States Department of Justice lawsuit, highlights the culmination of years of discussions and research on antitrust issues in the technology sector, particularly surrounding Google's search practices.