Google claims antitrust case is “backwards looking” and will hurt US consumers

“People use Google because they want to, not because they have to”

The antitrust trial which began this week could lead to Chrome or Android being spun out of Google. In a blog post, the company indicated how it plans to fight back.

Google has dropped a strong hint about how it intends to frame its case against US regulators, claiming that plans to dismantle the company would hurt US consumers and the wider economy.

Last year, a US court sided with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and concluded that Google had conducted anti-competitive practice. A trial began this week which seeks to decide which remedies are appropriate to redress the competitive balance.

Remedies could include breaking off parts of Google, such as Chrome or Android.

The DOJ said in a filing that Google forces Americans to submit to "unbridled demands and shifting, ideological preferences" to access a search tool.

Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist said in court Monday: "This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening — and they are listening — that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws."

See you in court

Google has yet to have its day in this courtroom, but it is very far from being the only legal challenge facing the company. Only last week, a separate court established that Google has an illegal monopoly in online advertising as well, and the giant faces action on this front in multiple jurisdictions including the EU and the UK.

In a blog post entitled, “Why DOJ’s proposed remedies harm America,” Google argued against the antitrust findings and suggested some of its own ideas for remedies.

The post also emphasised the extent to which AI has changed the online search game, arguing that the likes of ChatGPT made online search more competitive and that the case was therefore “backwards looking.”

"At trial we will show how DOJ’s unprecedented proposals go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would hurt America’s consumers, economy, and technological leadership," Lee-Anne Mullholland, Head of Regulatory Affairs. She continued:

"People use Google because they want to, not because they have to. DOJ's proposal would force browsers and phones to default to search services like Microsoft’s Bing, making it harder for you to access Google."

Mullholland added that the proposal would reduce, not enhance competition in search by damaging search engines such as Mozilla Firefox which relies on Google payments from search distribution.

Google’s arguments against being broken up lean partly on the arguments about privacy that campaigners have often deployed against it.

“DOJ’s proposal would force Google to share your most sensitive and private search queries with companies you may never have heard of, jeopardizing your privacy and security. Your private information would be exposed, without your permission, to companies that lack Google’s world-class security protections, where it could be exploited by bad actors.”

Testimony so far has revealed that Google gives Samsung an “enormous sum of money” each month to preinstall the Gemini AI app on Samsung devices, Bloomberg has reported. Whilst the precise sum was not disclosed, in addition to this sum, which began being paid in January this year. Google also paid out approximately $8 billion to Samsung to secure Google Search, Google Play Store, and Google Assistant in the default position on Samsung phones and tablets.

Whilst Google is likely to be spending a large sum on legal bills over the next few years, the company is unlikely to be facing an existential threat.

Gareth Mills, Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys who advises on regulatory and competition matter commented:

“The DOJ’s stance does appear robust, but the likelihood of a swift resolution that requires Google to make sweeping changes to its business structure in the immediate term is remote. The DOJ’s position has definite echoes of the similarly robust stance taken against Microsoft in the 1990s concerning the emerging software market, which (despite an initial ruling stating that Microsoft should be split up) instead led to years of negotiation and appeals, with Microsoft eventually emerging intact, although subject to greater regulatory constraints via its settlement with the DOJ. It is also notable that in its submissions, Google has quoted the Microsoft case.

“That is not to minimise the importance of this case or the potential ramifications for Google, but anyone who expects a dramatic impact in the immediate term may be disappointed. The importance of AI and how its usage develops as an industry is, however, clearly of concern to the DOJ and other regulators such as the CMA but like many matters involving the current tech giants, it would be naïve not to at least acknowledge that economics and politics could be as compelling factors as black-letter competition law principles as this case develops.”