Google illegally monopolized the search engine market, ruled Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
The ruling, spanning 286 pages, states that the tech giant paid $26 billion to smartphone and web browser owners to ensure its search engine remained the default option, thereby stifling competition.
While Google was found to have monopolized the search engine market, Judge Mehta ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in the market for search engine advertising. Competitors like Amazon and Walmart have started offering search-related advertising on their own platforms.
However, Google does hold a monopoly over search text ads, which are prominently displayed at the top of search results.
This landmark decision marks the first time in over two decades that a US District Court has found a tech company guilty of such practices.
The specific remedies and changes have not yet been announced, but potential outcomes include Google providing Android users in the US with the option to choose their preferred search engine when setting up a new device.
Other possible measures could involve separating Google’s search business from its other products, such as Android or Chrome. If this were to happen, it could lead to the largest forced breakup of a US company since AT&T was dismantled in 1984, which resulted in the telecom giant selling off parts of its business to smaller regional phone companies.
The comprehensive report disclosed that Google systematically paid major players like Samsung and Apple to prioritize its search engine.
This strategy significantly boosted Google’s market value, driving its revenue to over $300 billion, predominantly generated through ads within its search engine. This also impacted its market share, which grew from 80% in 2009 to 90% in 2020.
Google has announced its intention to appeal the decision, maintaining that its success stems from offering superior products that consumers prefer. The company argues that its dominance is a result of customer choice rather than anti-competitive practices.
As the legal battle continues, the tech world watches closely, anticipating potential shifts in the search engine landscape.
