{"id":2875,"date":"2024-08-06T21:30:00","date_gmt":"2024-08-06T21:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mobiledave.me\/?p=2875"},"modified":"2024-08-14T00:23:46","modified_gmt":"2024-08-14T00:23:46","slug":"a-historic-ruling-against-google-could-change-the-internet-as-we-know-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/mobiledave.me\/index.php\/2024\/08\/06\/a-historic-ruling-against-google-could-change-the-internet-as-we-know-it\/","title":{"rendered":"A historic ruling against Google could change the internet as we know it"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"

An attendee walks past a Google logo during the Viva Technology conference at Parc des Expositions Porte de Versailles on June 14, 2023 in Paris, France. | Chesnot\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A federal judge found Monday that Google\u2019s search business constitutes an illegal monopoly, a landmark ruling and major victory for the Biden administration as it seeks to clamp down on Big Tech. The decision has the potential to bring major changes to the internet \u2014 and sends a signal that no company is too big to regulate.<\/p>\n

US District Judge Amit Mehta found that \u201cGoogle is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.\u201d That involved protecting its dominance in the search engine market; Mehta focused particularly on the fact that Google signed contracts with companies, including Apple, to become the default search engine on their devices. Google currently enjoys a nearly 90 percent share overall and an almost 95 percent share on mobile devices.<\/p>\n

Google has vowed to appeal the ruling, which it has framed as an attempt to make it harder for consumers to access a search engine they prefer. The appeals process could take years to play out, and Judge Mehta has yet to levy specific penalties against Google, which will be decided following a hearing in September. <\/p>\n

While it may be true that many consumers prefer Google over any currently available alternative, should the ruling stand, it may allow a competitor to devise a better product, and one that actually has a real chance to penetrate the market. And that could mean more search options for consumers.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the door is locked, you can\u2019t get consumers,\u201d said Fiona Scott Morton<\/a>, a professor at Yale School of Management and former chief economist at the Justice Department\u2019s antitrust division. \u201cThe door isn\u2019t locked anymore. The door is open [to] a whole industry of innovators who have good ideas, and then we would see a change in competition going forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

What the Google antitrust ruling means for the company, the internet, and consumers<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The implications of the case, which was initially brought under the Trump administration, aren\u2019t yet entirely clear. Much of it may depend on exactly how Mehta decides to penalize Google, and how difficult that penalty makes doing business. In weighing punishment, Mehta will need to meaningfully penalize Google while minimizing any negative impacts on consumers \u2014 and that is a \u201creal quandary,\u201d said Herbert Hovenkamp<\/a>, an antitrust scholar at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most likely remedy would be to force Google to exit any contracts it signed with device makers to offer Google as a default search engine for a certain sum of money. But that might have minimal immediate impact on Google: those makers may still decide to make Google their default search engine.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cApple will just end up doing what it’s already doing,\u201d Hovenkamp said. \u201cAnd that may be true for a lot of device makers.\u201d<\/p>\n

But if a better search engine eventually comes along \u2014 say, one powered by AI, with better safety and privacy standards, or even a different way of displaying ads \u2014 then device makers don\u2019t have to stick with Google. Fundamentally, that kind of competition should spur innovation, which is good for consumers. <\/p>\n

Scott Morton said that Google is currently the best search engine in part because almost everyone uses it and it has exclusive positions on various device operating systems, which creates a \u201cself-perpetuating circle.\u201d Its user base gives it a large volume of data and reliable revenue opportunities that it can then use to cover the development, marketing, and acquisition costs that help it keep its edge.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce you break that, we don’t know what might happen,\u201d she said. \u201cIt could be very exciting.\u201d<\/p>\n

What the ruling means for other Big Tech companies<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In addition to its implications for the future of the internet, the ruling could affect the way other Big Tech companies do business. <\/p>\n

\u201cWhat it signals is that if you\u2019ve got a dominant product, you\u2019ve got to be very careful to make sure that your licensing and contract agreements are open, because making them exclusive can be dangerous,\u201d Hovenkamp said. That could mean greater caution around partnerships between companies. <\/p>\n

The Google ruling could also serve as a template for future antitrust cases, Hovenkamp said. But it\u2019s not clear how predictive this case will be of the other pending antitrust lawsuits that the Biden administration has filed against Big Tech companies. It has several in process:<\/p>\n