{"id":272434,"date":"2020-10-21T03:32:54","date_gmt":"2020-10-21T07:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=272434"},"modified":"2020-10-21T03:32:54","modified_gmt":"2020-10-21T07:32:54","slug":"the-us-is-taking-on-google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case-it-could-change-the-face-of-online-search","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/10\/21\/the-us-is-taking-on-google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case-it-could-change-the-face-of-online-search\/","title":{"rendered":"The US is taking on Google in a huge antitrust case. It could change the face of online search"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_272436\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-272436\" style=\"width: 799px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/The-US-is-taking-on-Google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case.-It-could-change-the-face-of-online-search.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-272436\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/The-US-is-taking-on-Google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case.-It-could-change-the-face-of-online-search.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"799\" height=\"500\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/The-US-is-taking-on-Google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case.-It-could-change-the-face-of-online-search.jpg 799w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/The-US-is-taking-on-Google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case.-It-could-change-the-face-of-online-search-300x188.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/The-US-is-taking-on-Google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case.-It-could-change-the-face-of-online-search-768x481.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 799px) 100vw, 799px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-272436\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Google provides services that are hugely valued the world over \u2014 and with no direct financial cost to the user. (File photo: @mitchel3uo\/Unsplash)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/pr\/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws\">antitrust lawsuit against Google<\/a> for unlawful monopolisation. The department says Google\u2019s conduct harms competition and consumers, and reduces the ability of new innovative companies to develop and compete.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s the most important monopolisation case in the US since 1998, when the DoJ brought <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/atr\/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact\">proceedings against Microsoft<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s possible the current proceedings, given their timing, are politically motivated. US President Donald Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/technology\/2019\/08\/06\/trump-accuses-google-anti-conservative-bias-without-providing-evidence\/\">voiced<\/a> the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2019\/8\/6\/20756734\/trump-google-anti-conservative-bias-claims-tweets\">view<\/a> that Google is prejudiced against conservative beliefs.<\/p>\n<p>But even if Democratic candidate Joe Biden is elected president, this action against Google is unlikely to go away.<\/p>\n<p>The ramifications for Google, if the court rules against it, could ultimately be dramatic. The DoJ\u2019s associate deputy attorney general, Ryan Shores, has refused to rule out seeking orders to break up the tech giant, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/10\/20\/technology\/google-antitrust.html\">saying<\/a> \u201cnothing is off the table\u201d.<\/p>\n<h2>Google\u2019s monopoly power<\/h2>\n<p>Google\u2019s economic power is no secret. Regulators around the world, including in the European Union, are investigating the company\u2019s conduct and bringing actions under competition, consumer and privacy laws.<\/p>\n<p>US Attorney General William Barr said the new DoJ action:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[\u2026] strikes at the heart of Google\u2019s grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Specifically, the DoJ claims Google is illegally <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/press-release\/file\/1328941\/download\">monopolising the markets<\/a> for online search and search advertising (the advertising that appears alongside search results).<\/p>\n<p>According to the DoJ, Google\u2019s US market share is roughly:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>88% in the market for general search services<\/li>\n<li>70% in the search advertising market.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>However, holding a dominant position isn\u2019t against the law. A company is allowed to enjoy a dominant position or even a complete monopoly, as long as it doesn\u2019t do so by unlawful means.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><em><br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\nRead more:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/the-accc-is-suing-google-for-misleading-millions-but-calling-it-out-is-easier-than-fixing-it-143447\">The ACCC is suing Google for misleading millions. But calling it out is easier than fixing it<\/a><br \/>\n<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>So what has Google allegedly done wrong?<\/h2>\n<p>The DoJ\u2019s main complaint is Google has entered into several \u201cexclusionary agreements\u201d that preserve its monopoly power by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.accc.gov.au\/business\/anti-competitive-behaviour\/exclusive-dealing\">hindering competition<\/a> from rivals (and potential rivals). Exclusionary agreements are deals that restrict the ability of at least one party to deal with other players.<\/p>\n<p>The DoJ says Google spends billions of dollars each year on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default search engine on Apple\u2019s Safari browser<\/li>\n<li>exclusivity agreements that forbid pre-installation of competing search services by certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors<\/li>\n<li>arrangements that force certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors to pre-install Google search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference<\/li>\n<li>using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers and other search access points.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The DoJ claims these agreements have created a \u201ccontinuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolisation\u201d in the market for online search and search advertising (which relies on Google\u2019s dominance in online search).<\/p>\n<p>Google has responded by describing the court action as \u201cdeeply flawed\u201d. In a <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.google\/outreach-initiatives\/public-policy\/response-doj\">blog post<\/a> it said:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[\u2026] people don\u2019t use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It also said users are free to switch to other search engines.<\/p>\n<p>But even if that\u2019s technically true, Google\u2019s agreements for pre-installation, default settings and preferential treatment give it a substantial advantage over its rivals.<\/p>\n<h2>Does any of this matter when Google is \u2018free\u2019?<\/h2>\n<p>Google provides services that are hugely valued the world over \u2014 and with no direct financial cost to the user. That said, \u201cfree\u201d services can still cause harm.<\/p>\n<p>According to the DoJ, by restricting competition Google has harmed search users, in part \u201cby reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data)\u201d. This is an important recognition that price is not all that matters.<\/p>\n<p>The logic behind this claim is that other search engines with better track records on privacy, such as <a href=\"https:\/\/duckduckgo.com\/privacy\">DuckDuckGo<\/a>, might otherwise be more successful than they are.<\/p>\n<p>Or, to frame that another way, Google might actually have to compete vigorously on privacy, instead of allegedly imposing privacy-degrading terms on its users.<\/p>\n<h2>What might happen if the action succeeds?<\/h2>\n<p>If Google is found to have contravened the prohibition against monopolisation under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/atr\/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1\">US Sherman Act<\/a>, it could face substantial fines and damages claims.<\/p>\n<p>But perhaps more concerning for Google would be the prospect of the DoJ seeking to break up Google\u2019s various businesses.<\/p>\n<p>Google owns a range of highly successful services, including Google search, Google Chrome, the Android operating system, and numerous ad tech (\u201cadvertising technology\u201d) services. Google\u2019s position and access to data in one business arguably give it advantages in its other businesses.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven Republican attorneys general from various US states have joined the proceedings and could individually seek remedies.<\/p>\n<p>The action won\u2019t be having a major impact any time soon, though. Google\u2019s lawyers estimate the case would only come before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in a year.<\/p>\n<h2>Could our competition watchdog be taking notes?<\/h2>\n<p>Google could contravene Australia\u2019s misuse of market power law under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, if it has engaged in conduct of the kind alleged by the DoJ that has an effect on Australian markets.<\/p>\n<p>As part of its 2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.accc.gov.au\/publications\/digital-platforms-inquiry-final-report\">Digital Platforms Inquiry<\/a>, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said Google has substantial market power in the general search and search advertising markets in Australia. It has a market share of about 95% in both cases.<\/p>\n<p>If this is true, it would be unlawful for Google to engage in any conduct that substantially lessens competition in a market (or has the purpose or likely effect of doing so). This could include entering exclusionary agreements that affect Australian markets.<\/p>\n<p>So far, the ACCC has twice brought <a href=\"https:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/news\/2019-10-29\/google-faces-accc-federal-court-misleading-use-of-data\/11649356\">proceedings against Google<\/a>, alleging it misled users about how it collects and uses their data. It is also investigating the conduct of Google and Facebook, in particular, in digital advertising markets as part of its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.accc.gov.au\/focus-areas\/inquiries-ongoing\/digital-advertising-services-inquiry\/issues-paper\">ad tech inquiry<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>While Australia\u2019s consumer watchdog might wait and see how proceedings against Google fare in the US <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-europe-tech-google-antitrust-analysis-idUSKBN242623\">and the EU<\/a>, the recent DoJ action could encourage the ACCC in any action it might be contemplating under Australian law on misuse of market power.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><em><br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\nRead more:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/every-step-you-take-why-googles-plan-to-buy-fitbit-has-the-acccs-pulse-racing-141052\">Every step you take: why Google&#8217;s plan to buy Fitbit has the ACCC&#8217;s pulse racing<\/a><br \/>\n<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\n<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" style=\"border: none !important;margin: 0 !important;max-height: 1px !important;max-width: 1px !important;min-height: 1px !important;min-width: 1px !important;padding: 0 !important\" src=\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/148519\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic\" alt=\"The Conversation\" width=\"1\" height=\"1\" \/><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https:\/\/theconversation.com\/republishing-guidelines --><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/katharine-kemp-402096\">Katharine Kemp<\/a>, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UNSW, and Academic Lead, UNSW Grand Challenge on Trust, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/unsw-1414\">UNSW<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>This article is republished from <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\">The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/the-us-is-taking-on-google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case-it-could-change-the-face-of-online-search-148519\">original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for unlawful monopolisation. The department says Google\u2019s &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":272436,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-272434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-katharine-kemp-senior-lecturer-faculty-of-law-unsw-and-academic-lead-unsw-grand-challenge-on-trust-unsw","mauthors-the-conversation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272434"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272434\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":272438,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272434\/revisions\/272438"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/272436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}