Photo credit: www.theverge.com

US v. Google: DOJ Ramps Up Antitrust Battle

At the outset of his opening arguments, David Dahlquist, representing the US Department of Justice (DOJ), introduced a concept he labeled as Google’s “vicious cycle.” In his explanation, he outlined that Google invests billions to secure its position as the default search engine across various platforms, leading to an increase in search queries. This influx provides Google with a wealth of data, which improves search results and boosts revenue, enabling further investments in being the default search option. While Google concurs with this description, it frames the cycle as a virtuous one, showcasing the strength of its search engine. The DOJ, however, perceives it as a troubling situation that requires judicial intervention.

Dahlquist’s comments marked the commencement of the remedies phase in the notable case of US v. Google, during which Judge Amit Mehta previously ruled that Google possesses monopolistic control over its search engine. The current focus of the court proceedings, which will unfold over the next two weeks, is to determine the appropriate corrective actions to address this monopoly. Dahlquist emphasized that the solution must begin by interrupting every element of the contentious cycle.

The DOJ has outlined three key demands in this case. Firstly, it seeks to prohibit Google from engaging in any agreements that secure premium search placement. A significant example of such arrangements is the alleged $20 billion paid annually by Google to Apple to ensure its status as the default search engine in the Safari browser. Similar deals exist throughout the industry, and the DOJ aims to eliminate these practices entirely.

Secondly, the DOJ is advocating for the divestment of Google’s Chrome browser, which Dahlquist described as “a significant gateway to search… and a starting point for 35 percent of user queries.” According to trial metrics, Chrome boasts over four billion users, leading the government’s legal team to argue for its separation as an independent entity. Google maintains that Chrome can only thrive as part of its broader business, yet Jonathan Sallet, representing the states, contended that acquiring such an asset is a rare opportunity for other firms.

Thirdly, the DOJ demands that Google be compelled to share its search data extensively, including its search index and results, with competitors who request it. This provision seems to raise the most concern for Google.

John Schmidtlein, a leading attorney representing Google, countered in his opening remarks by arguing that the DOJ’s demands would essentially lead to the commodification of Google’s services, allowing competitors to utilize Google’s search infrastructure to create their own products. He noted that while competitors would benefit from this arrangement, Google would be restricted from pursuing the necessary deals and investments to maintain its competitive edge. Schmidtlein warned that allowing competitors access to Google’s vast data sets could pose risks due to the sensitive nature of the information.

The trial poses critical questions regarding the fairness of the search market. Google has consistently maintained its dominance is attributable to being the superior search engine and that it would be unreasonable for the court to facilitate competitors in replicating Google’s operations without significant effort.

Interestingly, Google has conceded some ground concerning its default placement agreements with major companies such as Apple. It argues that the previous trial concentrated heavily on these deals and that curbing them—while allowing non-exclusive agreements—would better balance competitive opportunities. Schmidtlein characterized the DOJ’s proposed remedies as a “wish list” for competitors eager to benefit from Google’s innovations.

Conversely, the DOJ asserts that Google has established a formidable lead through illegal practices and that the only fair resolution is to support competitors in narrowing that gap. Testimony from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella during the earlier stages of the trial indicated that substantial amounts of search data are essential for developing a robust search engine, a resource that Google has monopolized. Early inquiries from Judge Mehta suggest he views some of the proposed data-sharing measures as potentially constituting a “structural remedy,” which could impose a more demanding standard for justification.

In the context of this trial, discussions around AI have become increasingly pertinent. Dahlquist highlighted the DOJ’s stringent proposals partly because Google is applying its dominant strategies in the AI space, notably with its Gemini project. Although he clarified that AI and search are distinct entities, he acknowledged that the emergence of platforms like ChatGPT should not lead the court to assume a competitive search market.

On the opposing side, Google posits that the rise of ChatGPT illustrates the competitive nature of the search landscape. Schmidtlein cited comments from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on the success and market confidence in ChatGPT, asserting that numerous companies are adequately competing without the interventions proposed by the DOJ.

AI-related discussions are expected to be a crucial aspect of the trial in the coming weeks. Key witnesses, including Sissie Hsiao—formerly of the Gemini team—as well as executives from OpenAI, are scheduled to testify, along with experts who will shed light on the interplay between AI technology and the search industry. The initial witness in the trial was an AI expert, Greg Durrett, whose testimony primarily focused on clarifying AI technology fundamentals.

As the trial progresses, there remains considerable distance between the positions of both parties. Google plans to appeal the verdict in its entirety, asserting that a fair marketplace can exist with more straightforward choices for consumers regarding search engines. In contrast, the government contends that Google’s present framework is unacceptable. Throughout the proceedings, Judge Mehta’s inquiries reflect a continual reassessment of his openness to sweeping reforms, yet a feasible compromise appears elusive at this juncture.

Source
www.theverge.com