Google loses antitrust case over search

A federal U.S. judge ruled Monday that Google has illegally held a monopoly in two market areas: search and text advertising.

The landmark case from the government, filed in 2020, alleged that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance. The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies.

The ruling marks the first anti-monopoly decision against a tech company in decades.

"Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in the decision.

The court homed in on Google's exclusive search arrangements on Android and Apple's iPhone and iPad devices, saying that they helped to cement Google's anticompetitive behavior and dominance over the search markets.

General search services, according to the court, applies to Google's core search engine, where it traditionally competed with Yahoo. General search text advertising refers to the text ads that run alongside search results. The court ruled that in both of those areas, Google has operated as a monopoly. However, the ruling found that general search advertising is not a market so there can be no monopoly control.

The court also declined to sanction Google for failing to preserve chat messages from employees.

The Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 38 states and territories, led by Colorado and Nebraska, filed similar but separate antitrust suits against Google in 2020. The suits were combined for pretrial purposes, such as discovery of evidence.

Alphabet shares fell more than 4% on Monday, dragged down by a broad decline in stocks worldwide.

The Justice Department didn't immediately have a comment. Google didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.