Despite years of preparation and six weeks at trial, leaders in technology and business remain confused about the Department’s motives in bringing this case.
"The thing that I find exceptionally curious is why the government brought this case to begin with. Because it's clear that there's no consumer benefit being advocated. In fact, the government's not even arguing in favor of American consumers," Szabo told Federal Newswire. "If the resolution of this case is that we are forced to use inferior products, it would seem like the only consumer harm is actually coming from the government, not from businesses that compete fiercely for product quality."
The government's lawsuit hinges on the assertion that Google has unfairly leveraged its relationships with mobile device, computer, and browser manufacturers to suppress competition in the online search market and establish the Google search engine as the predominant service. Szabo pointed out the weakness in the government's claim, saying that even on computers that come installed with Windows and have Bing installed as the default search engine, more than 80% of Windows users change the default from Bing to Google.
"Essentially, the main complaint has centered around the notion that either Americans are too stupid to be able to change what the default search engine is, or a fundamental misunderstanding of how business actually works," Szabo said. "Every time we've seen defaults set to something other than Google, an overwhelming majority of consumers change the default to the product that they think is better."
Szabo says that in its argument, the government has failed to successfully prove the three essential components of an antitrust case: that Google obtained market power or a monopoly, misused this dominance, and inflicted harm to consumers.
"The argument under market power is that there's only one search engine out there. Well, that's not been established. Abuse of market power, no, there's fierce competition all the time for quality of services. That's why the search engines keep getting better. If there were no competition, Google would look like it did 20 years ago. And then resulting in consumer harm, which absolutely hasn't been shown. So the Department of Justice has kind of failed its entire argument of showing abuse of market power or consumer harm," Szabo said. "If you look at the speeches and presentations by Jonathan Cantor, who's the lead attorney from the Department of Justice on this, it's not about protecting consumers. What we are instead seeing is an effort to weaponize antitrust and bring actions where the evidence doesn't match the facts."
Szabo suggests that the government's approach to the antitrust case represents a regression to outdated practices. He argues that the current stance reflects an antiquated understanding of antitrust, focusing on anything that might harm competition without considering the larger context. According to Szabo, this viewpoint can lead to subjective enforcement and potential harm for consumers.
"Unfortunately, with this case, as well as several others that we've seen in the antitrust law arena, it is not about helping consumers. In fact, some of the remedies will actually harm consumers," Szabo said. "It is instead a return to medieval antitrust approaches and a weaponization of antitrust to attack businesses that whomever sits in the positions of power doesn't like. It's a return to the crony capitalism that mired antitrust law for 50 years and continues to mire the antitrust laws in Europe. It's exceptionally frustrating to see across the board. This is not what our government should be doing. It is actively wasting your money and my money, taxpayer dollars, on loser lawsuits whose outcome will actually harm American citizens, unless you happen to be a shareholder of Microsoft."
The U.S. Department of Justice and eleven state Attorneys General filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google on October 20, 2020. The lawsuit alleges Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in search and search advertising through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices.
The complaint cites exclusivity agreements, tying arrangements, and preferential treatment as tactics used by Google to stifle competition and consumer choice. The DOJ says their action seeks to halt Google’s anticompetitive conduct and remedy the competitive disadvantages inflicted upon consumers, advertisers, and internet-reliant companies.
NetChoice is a prominent trade association based in Washington, D.C., representing the interests of the technology industry. According to their mission statement, NetChoice advocates for consumer choice, limited government intervention, and heightened competition in the online space, emphasizing that consumers are the best judges of the products and services they need and that the internet has flourished with light-touch regulation, providing an unprecedented abundance of services to consumers.
