US judge rules that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. What does this mean for you?

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has released a 277-page ruling in which he found that Google’s use of money to secure exclusive agreements with developers, carriers and equipment makers to be the search engine of choice violated the antitrust laws of the United States. The 10-week trial saw U.S. prosecutors accuse Google of paying billions of dollars annually to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla and others to be pre-installed as the default search engine across their platforms.

Some of the points he raised in his ruling include:

• For more than 15 years, one general search engine has stood above the rest: Google. The brand is synonymous with search.
• Google’s dominance has gone unchallenged for well over a decade. In 2009, 80% of all search queries in the United States already went through Google. That number has only grown. By 2020, it was nearly 90%, and even higher on mobile devices at almost 95%.
• But Google also has a major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution. 
• For years, Google has secured default placements through distribution contracts. It has entered into such agreements with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers. These partners agree to install Google as the search engine that is delivered to the user right out of the box at key search access points.
• The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points.
• After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches 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.

What is the Sherman Act?

Named for the principal author, Senator John Sherman, the Sherman Act is a law passed by Congress back in 1890 to promote competition within the economy by prohibiting companies from colluding or merging to form a monopoly.

And that is what Judge Amit Mehta ruled Google Search was doing by paying other tech companies to put Google Search on their devices.

According to the United States Department of Justice:

• Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations…”
• At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means. The long-standing requirement for monopolisation is both "(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the wilful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that Google's online search monopoly is illegal.

What was Google’s response?

In a twitter post on X, Kent Walker, the President for Global Affairs at Google, said:

Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.

So Google will appeal the verdict and bring another challenge to the U.S. courts. 

What does this mean for you?

If you’re a Google Search user, given that the United States v. Google LLC case started in 2020 and Google’s intention to appeal the ruling, the legal process should be expected to carry on for a while.

But CNN and the BBC have speculated what forms the "structural relief" that the US wants could take.

The bitter pill option for Google would see the courts demand that Google break itself up into smaller parts. This would see its Search functions spun off into a separate company while other platforms like Android and YouTube remain under Alphabet. But this could take years to happen and only after Alphabet had exhausted all of its legal options and there would be little change for you and me as long as Google remained the default option on our devices.

Another option would be for Google to stop paying companies like Apple and Samsung to use it as their default search option. It would be argued that if Google didn’t pay them to do so, these companies would develop a Search alternative.

Google could also be made to make users aware of other search engine options and to let the user choose which option they prefer.

Fines are always an option for the government. But fines are “not the primary way in which the American antitrust system enforces the law,” because they tend to be a “drop in the bucket for a huge, very profitable company like Google,” it was reported in CNN.

Is this it for Google?

This isn’t the only lawsuit that Google is facing. The company is also battling an antitrust case over its advertising tactics against the U.S and British Governments. Whether or not Google will win is still up in the air, meaning that more bad news could be on the horizon. But be assured that we are also keeping a close eye on this.

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.