The first landmark tech antitrust trial of the century, The United States of America v. Google LLC, is winding down, with the final witness ending testimony this week. What could possibly be at stake in District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s closing determination, anticipated subsequent yr, is nothing in need of “the future of the internet,” as Kenneth Dintzer, deputy director within the Department of Justice’s civil division, argued on the primary day of the trial.In the two-month-long trial, the DOJ and 14 states argued that Google has unlawfully monopolized the markets for normal search providers, search promoting, and normal search textual content promoting by getting into into unique default search engine contracts with system makers and app suppliers. The authorities argues that these contracts have enabled Google to garner a 90% search market share, freeze out competitors, and stifle innovation.Conversely, Google argued that it gained its default search contracts by offering a superior product enhanced by ongoing innovation and extremely expert engineers. Moreover, Google mentioned shoppers exit of their option to choose Google even when given a selection, and rivals who failed to realize market share missed the boat in creating sturdy competitors.Of all of the default search contracts examined in the course of the trial, none was extra essential than the deal Google landed to grow to be the search engine powering Apple’s merchandise, notably the iPhone. The Apple default contract would possibly properly grow to be Google’s Achilles heel as Judge Mehta weighs the professionals and cons of the proof earlier than him.Google pays its rival billions each yearAs Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice chairman of providers, testified in the course of the trial, Apple first struck up an web service settlement (ISA) with Google to make use of its search engine in Apple merchandise in 2002 after which renewed it once more in 2016 in negotiations with Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Under the deal, Apple efficiently negotiated cost from Google for a share of the search income Google generated on its platforms.Testifying on behalf of Google, University of Chicago professor Kevin Murphy inadvertently revealed that Google pays Apple 36% of its income from search promoting made by means of Apple’s Safari browser. Although each Google and Apple sought to maintain secret a lot of the information, displays, filings, and testimony of the trial, with Judge Mehta initially conceding to the tech giants’ requests for secrecy solely to largely relent below criticism, each Apple and Google fought notably onerous to maintain this income share information secret. Google argued that revealing details about its take care of Google “would unreasonably undermine Google’s competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.” Although the trial didn’t reveal how a lot search promoting income Google generates from Safari, Google executives testified that in 2021, the corporate paid $26.3 billion for default search engine standing throughout internet browsers and cellphones. One supply estimates that the lion’s share of this determine, or between $18 billion and $20 billion, went to Apple, which has an envious share of the extremely desired cellular market within the US.Pichai later confirmed the 36% determine in one other antitrust trial by which Epic Games has accused the search big of monopolistic practices by means of its app retailer. Although he didn’t specify a determine, he mentioned that Apple bought the bulk share of the $26.3 billion. “I thought that the Apple-Google deal would receive the most scrutiny in the trial, and that has turned out to be true,” mentioned economist Shane Greenstein, Martin Marshall Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. “There’s quite a few billion dollars changing hands every year to make Google the default search engine on the Apple phone.””I think a lot of people were looking at that and saying, there are two things really suspicious about this, and it’s been very interesting to try to see Google wiggle their way out of it,” Greenstein mentioned. One suspicious side is that Google has locked up default contracts with many prime gamers within the web and cellular ecosystem.”It doesn’t look so suspicious if Google had only done one of these [deals] with, say, Verizon,” Greenstein mentioned. “I don’t think they’d be in court. But they’ve done it with basically every major player, and that raises the suspicion that it’s very difficult for anybody else to break in as a search engine.”Greenstein said the other more suspicious thing about the deal is that Apple and Google are competitors. “Apple has an working system, has a Play Store, and makes its personal {hardware}. Google organizes Android, which is the working system, after which permits it to be deployed on plenty of different {hardware}. Google has its personal Play Store. Google has an working system that competes with the entire system that Apple organizes. When you go to the shop to purchase a smartphone, that is the selection you are making.” “It’s simply actually suspicious in antitrust regulation when one agency who competes with one other pays the agency they’re competing with to do one thing. That’s not the way in which competitors’s imagined to work. Competitors aren’t imagined to pay each other to do one thing.”During his testimony, Apple’s Cue said that his company chose Google because “there was no one on the market by way of search engines like google and yahoo that was higher than Google,” echoing Google’s argument that it has won its default search contracts on its superiority. But Greenstein asked that if it’s in Apple’s interest to have a good user experience, “why does Google should pay them?”Moreover, according to Greenstein, the argument that Google won its market share through merit is a timeworn argument in antitrust law. “I’ve bought to say this appears to be like like loads of different antitrust trials, the place on the one hand, the defendant says, have a look at the market as it’s now. We’re one of the best. It’s within the customers’ curiosity,” he said. “Google’s on this very humorous place in these sorts of arguments as a result of they’re going down a path well-trodden by the antitrust protection.”Late in the trial, former Google executive Jamie Rosenberg raised a rationale for why Google should pay for default search: to innovate and support the Android ecosystem. By sharing revenue with smartphone makers and mobile carriers, Google can ensure these partners have the resources to support new Android products, maintain them, and continue to offer security updates, even though Google doesn’t place any conditions on its partners regarding what they should do with their payments. What’s ahead for the Google search trial?If Google continues to maintain its dominant share in search, it could exercise its market power in new and emerging technology, such as the swiftly evolving integration of AI in search, as Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said he feared when testifying on behalf of the government.Moreover, the barriers to entry for Google’s rivals will likely remain as high as ever. If Google holds a virtual lock on the search market, “even for those who had a search engine like DuckDuckGo, why would you even hassle to place cash into it for those who’re a enterprise capitalist, regardless that it is this profitable market?” Greenstein mentioned.The subsequent step within the litigation is for Google and the federal government plaintiffs to summarize their circumstances and ship closing arguments, which will not seemingly occur till early 2024. Then Judge Mehta has a momentous determination to ponder as he develops his determination, which in all probability will not be launched till later within the yr.
Copyright © 2023 IDG Communications, Inc.