How Google's Monopoly Impacted Innovation
The Justice Department recently stated that Google's monopolization of the search market has delayed innovation in technology, such as ChatGPT, which may have been released years ago if Google hadn't maintained its monopoly. Kenneth Dintzer, lead lawyer in the Justice Department's antitrust case against Google, stated in court that "what has been going on for the past 12 years is Google has been maintaining its monopoly. Would we have seen ChatGPT six years earlier? Would we have seen five other competitors competing for search? Those are questions none of us can answer."
The Justice Department has brought two antitrust cases against Google and has been joined by state attorneys general. The allegations are that the company's deals to ensure its search engine is preloaded on web browsers and mobile devices violate antitrust laws. Google has asked a federal court to dismiss the cases before a scheduled trial in September, stating that its agreements with Apple Inc. and smartphone manufacturers to be the default search engine do not violate antitrust laws.
Google's attorney, John Schmidtlein, acknowledged that the agreements do give the company "an advantage," but stated that the advantage is not insurmountable. However, Dintzer believes that Google's insistence on exclusivity and the size of the payments made are key factors. "They are paying billions of dollars for these defaults. Google keeps saying, 'It's because people want us.' If people wanted it, they wouldn't be paying billions of dollars," he said.
Google has been paying to be the default search engine on Apple's Safari browser since 2003, and the amount paid is confidential, but is believed to be billions of dollars each year. Google believes that paying for the default position is a way to expose their product and make it available. However, the Justice Department believes that the exclusivity provision in the contracts should have been eliminated once Google gained a monopoly, as this would have allowed potential rivals to bid for access points on smartphones and browsers, and would have given companies like Apple or Mozilla the opportunity to design their products differently to offer consumers more choices.
Judge Amit Mehta is expected to rule on the case this summer. The outcome of the case is uncertain, but the judge has identified several issues that he believes would be better resolved at trial.
