Google's Monopoly Under Fire: The Antitrust Case That Could Reshape Tech

As search engines become essential for navigating the vast amount of information on the Internet, a key question arises: Are these search engines rigged? That may, perhaps, turn out not to be such a simple question after all in light of the forthcoming antitrust case against Google. Search engines, once democratizing tools of information, have come under scrutiny for practices to tip the playing field in favour of the biggest players.

Google’s Dominance: A Brief Overview

Google has not only changed how we view information but has now emerged as the gatekeeper of the internet. The last twenty years, Google has become the single defining factor for online search. With a mammoth market share in the search engine sector, the omnipresence of Google is so continual that at times it seems like the Internet itself runs through its servers.

But how has it managed to hold—or achieve—and then maintain this really dominant position? Well, the answer is strategic partnerships and exclusive deals with technology giants like Apple and Mozilla to make it the default search engine on billions of devices worldwide. In fact, such moves have further tightened Google's tight grip on the market, begging questions about its implications for competition and innovation.

The Case Against Google: Anticompetitive Practices

In October 2020, The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the attorneys general from 11 states accused Google of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which aims at ensuring fair competition with no monopoly practices. The exclusionary contracts that Google had with manufacturers, like Apple and Samsung, placed Google as the default search engine on those devices and excluded its competitors from the market.

In a significant development, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google is indeed monopolistic in internet search and that it cemented its more than 90 percent market share through the exclusive contracts. He plans to impose remedies for Google's search monopoly by August 2025, as the case enters its next phase that might redefine the company. There is also another antitrust case pending against Google that might compel it to divest its advertising technology business.

At the very core of the DOJ's case are exclusivity agreements. For example, its agreement with Apple places its default search on Safari for iPhones and iPads. These are multibillion-dollar deals that arguably give the impression of Google having bought its way into market share rather than having earned it through innovation.

Google argues that if users find these deals unattractive, they are free to move away from using its search facility with ease. Google says people use it because it's best; they don't because they are compelled to do so. DOJ contradicts this by pointing out the idea of "choice friction"—that even the slightest obstacle to changing default settings, the friction, keeps the users locked inside the Google ecosystem.

Winning an antitrust case is difficult, especially in the tech world. Typically, classical antitrust law looks at protecting consumer welfare, which is largely assessed by an increase in price. Many tech services, such as Google's search product, are free and so very difficult to prove direct harm to consumers.

DOJ would need to prove that Google's conduct has exerted detrimental foreclosure on competition, which would likely result in an inferiorly innovative and less varied market. Some of the potential remedies should the DOJ win would range from requiring Google to stop offering its search engine as the default to the extreme of breaking the company up.

Is Google Too Powerful? Drawing Parallels with Microsoft's Past

This will not be the first time that one of the titans of the tech industry has been placed under this kind of scrutiny. The case against Google is drawing  comparisons to the antitrust charges brought against Microsoft in the late 1990s. At that time, Microsoft was accused of using its Windows operating system to make it difficult for users to install competing browsers and giving itself an unfair leg-up in the browser market by bundling Internet Explorer.

The verdict? Microsoft was guilty of violating antitrust laws, but the company escaped being broken up and entered into a settlement that curtailed how it ran its business. While the case didn't shackle Microsoft, the new, more careful atmosphere it created did allow new competitors like Google to take off. Now, with the case brought against Google, the DOJ says it is in the same position, acting in a way that might prevent the "next Google" from ever rising.

The Microsoft Precedent: A Cautionary Tale for Google?

The Microsoft case set another major precedent for holding big techs accountable for anti-competitive behaviors. Microsoft's remedy, though short of a breakup, forced the company to change its practices in a way that would allow its competitors, like Google, to prosper.

Google stands at an identical crossroads today. The tech giant is very aware that losing this case could seal its fate, like Internet Explorer did—a once-dominant product laid low by its company's legal issues. Perhaps this awareness might explain why Google has invested so heavily in securing its market position, fearing a rapid decline once its monopoly is challenged.

What Could this Mean for the Indian Market?

Should Google end up losing the case, the fallout would be far from merely domestic. It could redefine markets worldwide, including in India. Google holds an even more significant sway in India, as the search engine comes by default on nearly all Android devices that form the major share of the Indian smartphone market.  

If Google loses the lawsuit, that could open up India’s technology market to more competition and innovation. Global companies such as Bing, Yahoo & Duckduckgo could expand, while ambitious local Indian startups could also seize an opportunity to build AI-powered search engines. However,none are universally considered”equivalent” in scale or reach to Google, although the shift might offer more choices for consumers, pressing existing companies to innovate their services to stay ahead in the market.

The Future of Big Tech and Fair Competition

The result of the Google antitrust case may well set in place the future course for the technology sector as this legal drama unfolds. But, for that matter, considering if it has been actually breaking antitrust laws or not, the very case is an outgrowth of a wider debate pertaining to Big Tech's power and the need for regulations that could go fast enough with technological change.

In the end, it is really not so much a case against Google as it is an issue of allowing room for innovation while forestalling possible monopolistic practices. This is really about ensuring that the next Google, the next big idea, will have its fair shake at developing in an open and truly competitive market.