US judge rules Google violated antitrust law in search case
Photo: AP
GoogleGoogle’s long-time rivals, such as Yelp and DuckDuckGo, scored a significant victory when a federal judge ruled that Google is an illegal monopoly. However, their reactions were measured, acknowledging that the challenge of restoring competition is just beginning. The next phase of the trial, set to begin in September, will determine remedies to address Google’s antitrust violations. The outcome of this phase will be crucial, as a weak remedy could allow Google to maintain its dominance.
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman highlighted the importance of having robust remedies in his blog post, stressing that while the ruling is a milestone, there is still much work to be done. DuckDuckGo SVP of Public Affairs Kamyl Bazbaz echoed this sentiment, expressing the need for a robust remedies trial that proposes effective solutions and establishes an oversight body to ensure compliance.
Judge Amit Mehta’s decision will focus on how to restore competition in general search services and in search text advertising. Google was found to have violated the Sherman Act through exclusionary contracts that secured its position as the default search engine. In the next phase of appeals, the judge will decide on measures to prevent future anticompetitive conduct by Google.
DuckDuckGo has stressed the importance of implementation details to ensure the effectiveness of the corrective measures. The company pointed to previous attempts by the European Union (EU) to curb Google’s monopoly, which included a selection screen for users to select their default search engine. However, these efforts had limited impact due to Google’s ability to circumvent the measures. DuckDuckGo advocates for the involvement of independent technical experts to monitor and enforce the corrective measures, thus ensuring that Google cannot take advantage of legal loopholes.
Yelp’s Stoppelman suggests that Google should be required to divest from services that have unfairly benefited from its search monopoly. He also calls for banning exclusive default search deals and Google’s self-preferencing in search results. Other enforcement advocates propose solutions such as separating Google’s Chrome and Android businesses to open up competition to alternative search engines on these platforms.
The process of implementing these measures may be lengthy, as Google plans to appeal the ruling. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) also poses a challenge, as it could change the search landscape and require measures that take these changes into account. The Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Jonathan Kanter, has indicated that structural measures, such as breaking up Google, may be sought.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.