In the trial of US v. Google, there was a notable moment when the presiding US District Judge, Amit Mehta, exhibited a lack of familiarity with certain tech-related details. During the opening statements, it became apparent that Judge Mehta wasn't sure whether Mozilla was a web browser or a search engine.
In this case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is challenging Google's dominance in the search market, with Judge Mehta being the sole arbiter responsible for determining whether Google maintained its position through fair competition, as Google asserts, or through anticompetitive practices, as alleged by the DOJ.
Kenneth Dintzer from the DOJ initiated the proceedings by outlining the DOJ's argument. The central claim is that Google has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in search and advertising markets since 2007, primarily by leveraging its status as the default search engine on mobile devices. To substantiate this claim, the DOJ intends to present witnesses, including Hal Varian, Google's former chief economist, and Sridhar Ramaswamy, co-founder of the now-defunct search engine Neeva, who will testify about the barriers Google presents to new search providers. Many of the witnesses are expected to be current or former Google employees and individuals with financial interests in Google's conduct.
However, much of the opening statements echoed the pre-trial briefs filed by both the DOJ and Google the previous week. The DOJ's argument contends that Google consistently blocked search competitors and hindered innovations that could have improved the web-search experience for consumers.
Judge Mehta sought clarification from Dintzer regarding the duration of Google's alleged monopoly (over a decade, according to the DOJ) and the significance of being set as the default search engine (50 percent of Google's search traffic).
William Cavanaugh, representing the state of Colorado, introduced a unique claim concerning Google's search engine marketing tool, SA 360, alleging that Google had a "duty to deal" with Microsoft and incorporate Bing ads into SA 360. However, Cavanaugh's argument's persuasiveness and the existence of a contract between Google and Microsoft were still undetermined.
The case's complexity is compounded by the rapid evolution of browsers, phones, and search engines over the past decade, making it challenging for Judge Mehta to navigate these arguments effectively. During Cavanaugh's presentation, Judge Mehta briefly appeared confused about references to today's technology, even questioning whether Mozilla was a browser or a search engine.
Google's attorney, John Schmidtlein, delivered the final opening statements. He argued that there are numerous ways to navigate the web besides Google search and highlighted the competition Google faces from various search providers, including social networks like TikTok.
Schmidtlein also criticized the plaintiffs for portraying Microsoft as a victim of Google's search dominance, asserting that Microsoft had the resources to invest in mobile search but chose not to, focusing instead on its Windows desktop monopoly. Google plans to present testimony from senior executives at Mozilla and Apple to support its claim that it won default agreements due to the high quality of its search engine.
Schmidtlein argued that preventing Google from competing for default agreements would harm competition because Google's revenue has fueled improvements in how mobile phones and browsers function for search. He contended that changing the default search engine could lead users to switch browsers entirely.
In response to Schmidtlein's claims, Judge Mehta inquired about Safari and Mozilla data on how often users switch default search engines. Schmidtlein conceded that there was no such data but stated that Google would present evidence of users switching when Bing was set as the default.
Schmidtlein concluded by asserting that the DOJ and Colorado sought to distort search competition by hindering Google's ability to compete, with the misguided belief that forcing people to use inferior products in the short term would benefit long-term competition—a stance he argued was inconsistent with US antitrust law and sound economic principles.
Comments