The Trader Harbor
  • Business
  • Politics
  • World News
  • Stocks
  • Business
  • Politics
  • World News
  • Stocks

The Trader Harbor

Business

Google’s antitrust ruling has experts looking to 25-year-old Microsoft case for answers

by admin August 9, 2024
August 9, 2024
Google’s antitrust ruling has experts looking to 25-year-old Microsoft case for answers

In ruling Monday that Google has held a monopoly in internet search, U.S. judge Amit Mehta invoked the company at the center of the most famous tech antitrust case in U.S. history: Microsoft.

A federal judge determined in 1999 that Microsoft had illegally used the market power of its Windows operating system to box out rival browsers, namely Netscape Navigator. A settlement in 2001 forced the software giant to stop disadvantaging competitors in its PC deals.

Google’s landmark case, filed by the government in 2020, alleged that the company has kept its share of the search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance. The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies.

“The end result here is not dissimilar from the Microsoft court’s conclusion as to the browser market,” Mehta wrote in his 300-page ruling. “Just as the agreements in that case help[ed] keep usage of Navigator below the critical level necessary for Navigator or any other rival to pose a real threat to Microsoft’s monopoly, Google’s distribution agreements have constrained the query volumes of its rivals, thereby inoculating Google against any genuine competitive threat.”

Mehta said one key similarity is the “power of the default.” For Google, that refers to its search position on Apple’s iPhone and Samsung devices — deals that cost the company billions of dollars a year in payouts.

“Users are free to navigate to Google’s rivals through non-default search access points, but they rarely do,” Mehta wrote.

Mehta said a separate trial will take place on Sept. 4, to determine the remedies, or penalties against Google. At that point, Google can appeal, a process that experts said could take around two years. Microsoft appealed its initial ruling before ultimately settling with the Department of Justice.

“All along, the government has implicitly and explicitly said they’re basing this case on the Microsoft case,” said Sam Weinstein, law professor at Cardozo Law School and a former DOJ antitrust lawyer.

In the case of Microsoft, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that the company forced PC makers to include its Internet Explorer browser in Windows, and threatened to punish them for installing or promoting Navigator. The judge proposed that Microsoft divest either its operating system business or its applications business, which both enjoyed market leadership. 

After Microsoft’s successful appeal, a U.S. District Court banned the software company from retaliating against device makers for shipping PCs that include multiple operating systems. Microsoft was required to give software and hardware companies the same programming interfaces that Microsoft middleware employs to work with Windows.

Nicholas Economides, an economics professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, said the similarities in the Google case are clear.

“My first reaction on this is that Google appears to lose across the board,” Economides said. “This big blow reminded me of the Justice Department’s win against Microsoft.”

The most likely outcome, according to some legal experts, is that the court will ask Google to do away with certain exclusive agreements. The court could suggest that Google make it easier for users to try other search engines. 

While a monetary penalty is also on the table, the bigger risk is that Google will have to alter its business practices in a way that undermines profitability. For example, if Google can no longer be considered a default search engine on smartphones, it could lose a significant chunk of business in its core market.

In the second quarter, “Google Search & Other” accounted for $48.5 billion in revenue, or 57% of Alphabet’s total revenue.

In its appeal, Google will likely introduce fresh evidence that artificial intelligence has played more of a role in competition, a dynamic that didn’t exist when the DOJ filed its initial lawsuit. However, it’s a perception Google has tried to downplay since being upstaged by OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Neil Chilson, former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission and currently head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, sees increased competition for Google due in part to AI, which could help the company’s case.

“The rigid market definitions means the court finds that Google has illegally maintained a monopoly in general search,” Chilson said. But “search vertical providers” like Amazon and AI services like ChatGPT “threaten to upend Google’s entire general search advertising business model,” Chilson said.

Google shares didn’t move much after Monday’s ruling, as the stock was already trading lower due to the broad market sell-off. The stock slipped another 0.6% on Tuesday to close at $158.29. Google didn’t provide a comment for this story.

Since Mehta didn’t discuss potential remedies in the ruling, investors and analysts are forced to wait. Experts say it’s unlikely that Google will be forced to break itself up.

“I think there were obvious business lines you could spin off in the Microsoft case but it’s not as obvious here,” Weinstein said, adding that divestiture is rarely ordered for a Section 2 case.

The trial beginning Sept. 4 will produce some important answers. Bill Baer, who formerly ran antitrust divisions at both the FTC and DOJ, said the Microsoft precedent makes the case against Google a strong one.

“It’s hard to say at this point what the DOJ is going to seek and what the judge is going to accept,” Baer said.

— CNBC’s Jordan Novet contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Stocks fall as comeback rally falters; Dow lower by 100 points
next post
‘Great asset’: Radical Dems, socialists thrilled by Harris’ VP pick Tim Walz

Related Posts

Women’s college basketball final expected to set new...

April 6, 2024

Stocks close higher, clawing back some losses from...

August 11, 2024

Target doubles bonuses for salaried employees as profits...

March 25, 2024

Walmart to close 51 clinics as it shutters...

May 1, 2024

Comcast to bundle Peacock, Netflix and Apple TV+...

May 15, 2024

Albertsons sues Kroger after judge rules against grocery...

December 12, 2024

Federal prosecutors are examining financial transactions at Block,...

May 2, 2024

JPMorgan Chase posts record profit as the bank’s...

January 17, 2025

Business groups hit back at efforts to cap...

March 6, 2024

Claire’s, known for piercing millions of teens’ ears,...

August 8, 2025

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Latest

    • Bed Bath & Beyond relaunches with first store in Nashville, plans dozens more

      August 10, 2025
    • The Real Drivers of This Market: AI, Semis & Robotics

      August 10, 2025
    • S&P 500 Breaking Out Again: What This Means for Your Portfolio

      August 10, 2025
    • Sydney Sweeney jeans controversy making advertising great again

      August 10, 2025
    • Nagasaki mayor issues chilling warning on 80th anniversary of atomic bombing

      August 10, 2025
    • Kash Patel celebrates major FBI achievements and record seizures during Trump’s first 200 days in office

      August 10, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (1,330)
    • Politics (4,206)
    • Stocks (1,577)
    • Uncategorized (45)
    • World News (1,323)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: TheTraderHarbor, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 thetraderharbor.com | All Rights Reserved