Google Search

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.

In new research, Shaoor Munir, Konrad Kollnig, Anastasia Shuba and Zubair Shafi explore how Google uses its web browser, Chrome, to maintain its dominance in other online markets, particularly advertising and search. Their findings contribute to an ecosystem analysis of Google’s anticompetitive behavior.

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 United States Google Search case is the monopolizing effect of Google securing for its own search offering the status of default search engine on a web browser, such as Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. The authors review the behavioral economics and empirical evidence of this effect and suggest several conduct and structural remedies to open up the search market to competition.

Christian Bergqvist has identified 100-plus antitrust cases against Google spanning 23 jurisdictions and classifies them by the service in question and its alleged harms. Most of these fall within eight groups. Bergqvist’s analysis provides a picture of recent shifts in antitrust enforcers’ regulation of Big Tech and the potentially transformative consequences for Google and the entire tech industry.

Recent antitrust interventions have put forward behaviorally informed theories of harm. However, they have adopted a deterministic model of behavior, missing the nuances that allow behavioral economics to provide a richer picture of people’s conduct. The recently concluded Google trial, grounded on the stickiness of defaults, is a good example. A more careful application of behavioral economics would have shown how Google’s purchase of default search engine status was a part of a broader monopolization plan. It would also show why the dominant remedy, forced choice, would have negligible effects.

Erin Carroll writes that the lack of public access to the Google search antitrust trial has resulted in unprecedented secrecy which, she writes, could undermine the public’s trust in the outcome and start a dangerous trend amongst other Big Tech companies facing similar trials. 

Google is on trial for anticompetitive behaviors designed to protect its monopoly in internet search. Herb Hovenkamp analyzes several possible remedies the presiding court and Department of Justice could pursue and suggests which ones may succeed in reinforcing competition to protect consumer interests.