Google antitrust case: A battle for the soul of the internet

The Google antitrust case
The Google antitrust case highlights the need for stricter regulation of Big Tech companies that follow monopolistic practices and stifle competition.

Significance of the Google antitrust case: The core principle of a capitalist economy is open markets with unrestricted competition. Yet, historical evidence suggests that capitalism, in practice, often leads to market domination by monopolistic corporations. This situation harms consumers, both individuals, and businesses, by limiting access to competitive pricing, quality, and variety. Leading market economies have tough antitrust laws to deal with monopolies.

The United States has a vibrant antitrust framework to regulate entities that monopolise markets and suppress competition. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was a direct response to public concern over the monopolistic practices of large businesses. This legislation, proposed by Senator John Sherman, was part of a larger movement to regulate business practices that were seen as harmful to the economy and society. The Act seeks to maintain fair competition in the market, ensuring that no single entity could dominate and control a market sector.

READGender inequality: Education can break the vicious circle

Run-ins with antitrust laws

Google had several run-ins with antitrust laws across the world, including in India. The tech behemoth is facing its toughest challenge yet with the US department of justice slapping a lawsuit under the Sherman Antitrust Act on September 12. This lawsuit represents a significant attempt to address the alleged monopolistic practices within the high-technology sector. The DOJ accuses Google of monopolising search and advertising markets, a claim that highlights the ongoing relevance and necessity of antitrust laws in the modern economy.

Google’s market dominance is particularly evident in search services. The company holds around 90% of the search engine market share, far surpassing competitors like Bing and Yahoo. DuckDuckGo, known for its privacy focused approach, remains a minor player. This dominant position has led to a situation where many consumers are unaware of alternatives to Google’s search services.

Google’s financial reliance on search services is evident in its revenue breakdown. The company earned $112.691 billion from advertising in the first half of the current fiscal year, accounting for a significant portion of its total revenue. This figure underscores the critical role that search services play in Google’s business model.

The Google antitrust case

The DOJ, along with several state attorneys general, is suing Google under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging that Google has become a monopolistic gatekeeper of the internet. This lawsuit, which consolidates similar claims from multiple states, argues that Google has maintained its monopoly through anticompetitive tactics, including paying to be the default search engine on numerous devices. This behaviour, according to the DOJ, has allowed Google to control a vast majority of general search queries in the US, effectively stifling competition.

Google’s response to these allegations emphasises the competitive nature of the high-tech industry, arguing that its practices benefit consumers by fostering innovation. This defence raises fundamental questions about the balance between market dominance and innovation in the tech industry.

‘Battle for the internet’s soul’

The significance of this trial extends beyond Google; it is seen as a pivotal moment in tech history, a ‘battle for the internet’s soul’. The outcome could set a precedent for how monopolistic practices are viewed and regulated in the high-tech sector, potentially impacting the entry of new technologies like generative AI into the market.

Since the Sherman Antitrust Act, the US has seen a varied history of antitrust enforcement. Notable cases include the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911 and the antitrust lawsuit against AT&T in 1984, which resulted in its split into several ‘Baby Bells’. These cases illustrate the evolving nature of antitrust enforcement and its impact on the market.

Digital revolution: Opportunities and challenges

The digital revolution, while transformative, has not been uniformly beneficial. It has been accompanied by economic stagnation and increasing concentration of wealth. The rise of monopolies and oligopolies in key sectors is a contributing factor to this economic slowdown. The network effect, a phenomenon where businesses become more efficient and valuable as they gain more customers, creates high entry barriers for new competitors.

The data-driven nature of Big Tech companies is a crucial aspect of their business models. Companies like Google and Facebook rely on collecting vast amounts of personal data, which they monetise through advertising. This dependence on data raises concerns about privacy, security, and the broader societal implications of these business practices.

Internal challenges within Big Tech companies, such as Google’s firing of Timnit Gebru and the formation of employee unions, reflect growing discontent with corporate practices and culture. These developments, along with ongoing legal challenges, suggest that the future of these tech giants is poised for significant changes. The outcomes of these various challenges will likely shape the future of the high-tech industry and its impact on society for years to come.

(Ajith Balakrishnan is an engineer, information technology expert, and social observer. He writes about technology, economy, environment, society, and politics.)

Subscribe to Policy Circle newsletter