The ruling, issued on Aug. 5 by District Judge Amit Mehta, concludes a lengthy legal battle initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general.
“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reached the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” Mehta’s decision states.
The case against Google, filed in October 2020, alleged that the tech giant engaged in anti-competitive practices by establishing exclusive agreements with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers.
These agreements prohibited partners from pre-installing rival search engines, leading most U.S. devices to come preloaded exclusively with Google, and forcing competitors to find alternative ways to reach users.
In 2021, Google paid more than $26 billion in “revenue share” agreements, based on advertising revenue generated from these default placements.
The court said Google’s conduct allowed the company to charge “supracompetitive prices for general search text ads,” enabling it to earn substantial monopoly profits.
Google argued that its practices were pro-competitive and justified by the quality of its services, although the court found these justifications insufficient.
Google said in a statement to The Epoch Times that “this decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available.
“Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal,” Kent Walker, president of Google Global Affairs, said in the emailed statement. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”
In recent years, antitrust lawsuits have also been filed against other big tech companies Amazon, Meta, and Apple.
The court is expected to impose measures to restore competitive conditions in the affected markets.
DOJ prosecutor David Dahlquist argued that Google’s pricing, despite potential quality declines, was characteristic of a monopolist’s behavior.
Meanwhile, Google’s attorney, John Schmidtlein, highlighted the company’s continuous innovation and competition with tech giants such as Meta and TikTok.
A major point of contention was whether Google’s market position allowed it to dominate through default search engine agreements, which shared ad revenue with partners such as Apple.
A University of Chicago professor said at the time that Google shared 36 percent of its search revenue with Apple for the Safari browser.
Schmidtlein contended that the DOJ’s evidence was anecdotal, lacking quantitative analysis, but Dahlquist maintained that Google’s own data showed significant price increases without losing revenue, indicating a monopolistic advantage.
The case is seen as the most significant antitrust trial of the century.
The ruling suggests the possibility of structural relief as a remedy, involving changes to Google’s business operations, such as altering or terminating exclusive agreements that make Google’s search engine the default option.
While the court ruling doesn’t specify breaking up the company, potential remedies will be determined in subsequent proceedings.
