US Department of Justice claims Google bought its way to web search dominance
- Reference: 1694624415
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/09/13/google_search_antitrust_trial/
- Source link:
The trial began on September 12 with a court hearing in which the US government outlined its case against the internet giant, claiming Google has used anti-competitive practices to maintain its near-monopoly of online searches.
Google's search engine is a key part of its business operations as it is linked to advertising payments that make up about 80 percent of the company's $224 billion revenue, [1]according to estimates , so the stakes are high for the Mountain View outfit.
[2]
In his opening statement, Justice Department lawyer Kenneth Dintzer claimed Google had become a monopoly by at least 2010 and currently controls more than 89 percent of the online search market. He said it had abused its monopoly, paying more than $10 billion a year to hold on to its position as the default search option in web browsers and mobile devices, [3]Bloomberg reported.
[4]
[5]
For its part, Google denied the charges, maintaining that its dominance in search is because it provides a better service than rivals, and payments to partners such as Apple and Mozilla are to compensate them for work to ensure their software gets security updates and other maintenance.
According to [6]Law360 , Dintzer recounted how Apple had considered other search engines as the default choice in 2007, but were told by Google: "No default placement – no revenue share."
[7]
He also said Google had estimated the losses if Apple switched defaults to Microsoft's Bing when the contract was up for renegotiation in 2016 and called it "significant," adding the company once claimed that losing default search status on Apple would be a "code red situation" because of the large number of users in the US that have iPhones.
But it isn't just iPhones, Google has also ensured that its search engine is the default on every Android phone sold in the US, Dintzer claimed, meaning rival services have little chance of competing.
[8]Dutch consumer groups sue Google over its entire business model
[9]Google Chrome Privacy Sandbox open to all: Now websites can tap into your habits directly for ads
[10]Google settles another Play Store antitrust case
[11]Google Chrome pushes ahead with targeted ads based on your browser history
Google's legal representative, John Schmidtlein of Williams & Connolly, argued that users have plenty of search options available to them via their browser, and it is easy to switch the default on browsers such as Firefox or Apple's Safari to a different search engine such as Bing, Yahoo or DuckDuckGo. Many users may not be aware of this, of course.
Schmidtlein hit back at claims of Google's monopoly status, pointing out that Microsoft has made Bing the default choice in its own Edge browser and on all Windows computers. Yet users "flock" over from Bing and Edge to Google "because it helps them find what they're looking for," Schmidtlein said.
However, Dintzer asserted that US antitrust law focuses on competition and whether consumers have worse options thanks to Google's actions.
[12]
The trial is expected to last up to 10 weeks and will have two phases, according to [13]Reuters . In the first phase, US District Judge Amit Mehta, overseeing the trial, is set to make a decision on whether Google has broken antitrust law.
If the decision goes against Google, the judge will then have to decide how to remedy the situation, which may be to simply order Mountain View to stop the practices found to be illegal. However, it has been suggested that the Justice Department may seek the separation of the search business from the company's other products, like Android and Google Maps.
This is not the only legal fight Google is facing. [14]Another US case that seeks to break up its advertising business saw a number of states joining the Department of Justice lawsuit back in April.
Further afield, the European Commission is considering whether Google might be [15]violating antitrust rules by favoring its own advertising tools over those of rivals, and whether the Chocolate Factory should be broken up in response.
The company is also being sued by a bunch of Dutch consumer organizations over alleged [16]large-scale privacy violations , with the plaintiffs demanding compensation and a halt to the claimed privacy violations by Mountain View. ®
Get our [17]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-segment/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZQIxMNXOQsGAXAW7ZGXEegAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-12/google-pays-10-billion-a-year-to-maintain-monopoly-doj-says
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQIxMNXOQsGAXAW7ZGXEegAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQIxMNXOQsGAXAW7ZGXEegAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1720437
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQIxMNXOQsGAXAW7ZGXEegAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/13/google_dutch_consumer_groups/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/google_privacy_sandbox/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/06/google_settles_another_play_store/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/06/google_privacy_popup_chrome/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQIxMNXOQsGAXAW7ZGXEegAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-takes-google-much-anticipated-antitrust-trial-2023-09-12/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/18/9_more_us_states_sign/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/14/european_commission_google_breakup/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/13/google_dutch_consumer_groups/
[17] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Time Compression
Google's arguments were absolutely true... back in the early 2000s. It did indeed get to be the #1 search engine because where other search engines at the time prided themselves on the number of hits they could pump out, Google came up with a way to put more relevant hits at the top of the list. So, much like Microsoft in the 1980s, their success was earned. However, like Microsoft in the 1990s, Google eventually started trying to protect its market position in any way possible. With Microsoft you probably can't point to any single event precipitating the change from legitimately the best offering for the widest number of people at a given point in time to being a monopolistic asshole of a company, with Google you can point to the acquisition of DoubleClick. DoubleClick is not only the inventor of the tracking cookie, but before Google bought them, they hadn't yet found a line they weren't willing to cross in the name of the bottom line. After being subsumed by Google, the rot started to spread at Google and the monopolistic practices started getting more and more brazen.
The Google of today is a completely different company from the Google of the early 2000s. The Google of today absolutely needs to be smacked around by regulators.
Re: Time Compression
You may get some disagreement about Microsoft earning their success in the 1980s, but the rest of your post was spot on.
In particular, I used to work for DoubleClick when the first privacy-protecting laws were being passed to place at least some minimal limitations on what DoubleClick was doing at the time. Kevin Ryan, the CEO, was overtly bullish about the company's ability to either fight that legislation or subvert it, with no thought given to the legitimate privacy desires of the users.
Re: Time Compression
I hope you managed to retain at least most of your soul after that tour of duty at DoubleClick.
And as I stated, in the 80s Microsoft had the best solution for the widest assortment of users. Sure, they got their foot in the door as a result of a combination of family connections and wealth, but this was also sort of the golden age of the PC with Apple, Amiga, and dozens of others having their own offerings. DOS, and later Windows, won the day. Not all of that can be attributed to the IBM deal and then later also selling to Compaq. Though I do respect and appreciate the respectful way you disagreed.
Re: Time Compression
Yep I remember when Google was a huge improvement over Altavista. But over the years SEOs ate away, and Google played a game of whack a mole with them that made things progressively worse. And then Google tried to capture more and more direct revenue from their results by tilting them in ways that were profitable, by ignoring search terms even when you put them in quotes, so they could steer you to keywords they make money on.
I started using DDG almost a decade ago and while it was kind of painful at first it soon reached a point where it is probably 95% as good as Google, through a combination of fewer SEOs trying to game them and not having a reason to steer you to results you explicitly don't want. I occasionally use the '!g' option to get Google's results, but only rarely find what I was looking for that way if I couldn't find it with the initial DDG search.
Much as I dislike them, Google has a point. Most people use Edge to download chrome, and get really pissed off when it keeps coming back. Microsoft need to keep ramming it down our throats because people don't want to use it by choice.
The same goes for bing. I know one person who uses bing as their default search engine. One. The rest use Google.
Google came to be the most popular search engine because, at the time, they were the most useful. If a better search engine came along, people would use it. But it hasn't.
Sure, it isn't what it used to be, and the cartload of ads on the first page don't do it any favours. But I can always find what I'm looking for without too much hassle, and that is really all most people care about.
Google has plenty of problems, not least being a sneaky, devious, self serving data slurping monster, but it gets the job done. Nobody is forced to use it, and they wouldn't if a better alternative presents itself - look at how quickly people leapt onto chatGPT, and how quickly they've leapt off again. Create something as god as or better than Google, and Google will go the way of yahoo and Alta vista.
The rest use Google
No we don't. i.e. we don't directly use Google or Bing. That is so 1990's. The more clued up of us use an anonomizser like Startpage.com.
Since Google and from memory Bing started putting the top ad payers at the top of your results or other shit like it, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them with both hands tied behind my back.
There is no sense in sending info to the likes of google that helps them send as back in your direction. AD's are the devils work.
I am old enough to remember the days when Google didn't exist on the web.
You either looked through lists of websites on Yahoo, or got them from a friend, or stumbled on them through "link sharing" banner ads.
Once you could look up exactly what you wanted, and get reasonable results, there was no reason to use AskJeeves or Lycos or Altavista.
There was no reason to look anywhere but Google.
Yes I remember back then if I found a site I liked I would bookmark it. Then I'd go back a few months later and it was 50/50 whether that link would still work, even if the site itself still existed.
When Altavista came out and made the web searchable it was a revelation, and I quit needing to bookmark what I knew I could easily find again via search. Google was a big improvement over them, but unfortunately while PageRank was brilliant and would be the best possible solution in an ideal world, it was terrible in a world inhabited by SEOs.
AltaVista
Back in 1996, whilst working in the IT Department of a company with around 100+ users, I was tasked with setting up the internet access on all the computers.
As we were still running Windows 3.1 at the time, this not only meant installing a TCP/IP stack and a web browser, but I also had to spend several minutes explaining what the internet was to each user after I had upgraded their PC. At that time this mostly consisted of showing them a few sites relevant to the business as well as introducing them to AltaVista. I would ask if they had any hobbies so that we could search on a topic in which they were interested. Most people would respond with topics such as gardening, knitting, tropical fish and so on, and I'd type that into AltaVista so that they understood how to get at the data they wanted.
After upgrading the PC of a user I will call Barry (mainly because that was his name) I asked about his hobbies and, with a large grin on his face, he replied, "Necrophilia." I shrugged and typed it into AltaVista. Now, given that this was only 1996, it was still amazing how many results were returned! It was a good job Barry had his own office so that no one else could see what we were looking at!
Microsoft would know
The majority of desktops run Windows, where Edge is the default browser, and Bing the default search engine. And Edge has 5% of market share, and Bing has 3% of market share. Apple is more successful with Safari, a respectable share of their users keep the default browser. Not sure whether the difference comes from quality or brand loyalty, but the numbers don't lie.
Useful Google command
echo "Don't be evil" | sed s/n\'t//