Current:Home > MarketsJust because Americans love Google doesn't make it a monopoly. Biden lawsuit goes too far.-Angel Dreamer Wealth Society D1 Reviews & Insights
Just because Americans love Google doesn't make it a monopoly. Biden lawsuit goes too far.
View Date:2024-12-23 23:13:03
On Tuesday, a landmark trial begins that will expose what The Washington Post calls the Biden administration’s “aggressive posture on antitrust,” which essentially seeks to punish consumers of Google’s internet search engine.
The Department of Justice alleges that Google’s position as the default search engine on most web browsers and Android smartphones should be dismantled.
From the beginning, the Biden administration’s novel and aggressive antitrust theories have raised eyebrows. This can be seen in the Federal Trade Commission’s forthcoming case against Amazon Prime, a service beloved by American consumers.
Similarly, internet users see Google as the best search engine, and they overwhelmingly prefer it. American consumers’ strong preference for Google’s search engine does not transform this incredibly successful product into an antitrust violation.
However, President Joe Biden’s antitrust enforcers claim they know better than consumers. Embracing the government’s viewpoint would transform antitrust law into a protection racket for the government’s preferred businesses.
Antitrust law is designed to protect consumers, not competitors
For decades, American courts have recognized famed antitrust scholar Judge Robert Bork, whose key insight was that antitrust law is, and should be, about protecting consumers – not competitors.
Market competition in all American industries produces better products and services for consumers, and as a result, consumers, not the government, choose which products succeed. There is no antitrust violation just because consumers significantly prefer one company’s superior product.
Split up Amazon, Prime and AWS?If Biden's FTC breaks up Bezos' company, consumers lose.
The DOJ lawsuit against Google casts consumer preferences aside. The government contends that Google has acted anti-competitively by signing agreements with web browsers (such as Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox) that make Google the initial search engine on just-installed browsers. But to succeed in court, the DOJ must prove that the alleged conduct excludes others from competing and thus harms consumers.
These agreements do not preclude competition for two main reasons. First, these agreements don’t require exclusive use of Google’s search engine. Rather, they are akin to a cereal brand paying for eye-level shelf space in the grocery store, which no one thinks is an antitrust violation.
Google is simply paying to promote its product. But just as when shopping for groceries, consumers can choose differently if the competing product is better. Browsers can and do feature other search engines on their home pages. And consumers can easily change the default search engine on their browsers with just a few clicks.
The DOJ’s theory here is thus far different from the antitrust lawsuit it brought two decades ago against Microsoft. In that case, the government argued that Microsoft violated antitrust laws by categorically prohibiting internet providers from promoting (or even in some cases permitting) alternative browsers besides its own.
Here, by contrast, Google’s status as the "default" search engine presents no meaningful barrier to consumer choice. Most consumers don’t use another search engine. Indeed, consumers overwhelmingly opt for Google even when presented with alternatives: The most searched term on Microsoft’s Bing, for example, has been “Google.”
Google won the competition for consumer preference
Second, companies like Apple and Mozilla design their web browsers to offer an initial default search engine because consumers demand it.
For instance, Mozilla has, in the past, used Yahoo as the default search engine for Mozilla’s Firefox browser. But that move turned consumers against Firefox, so Mozilla returned to using Google as the default search engine to improve the “user experience and performance.”
Apple’s Safari browser, too, makes Google the default search engine because – in Apple’s own words – Google’s “search engine is the best.” Google is thus the default search engine on these browsers because it won the competition for consumer preference.
The DOJ’s additional claims regarding Google’s search engine on Android fare no better. Google’s agreements with Android device manufacturers and carriers cannot be viewed in a vacuum that pretends Apple iPhones don’t exist.
As with web browsers, Google’s status as a preinstalled app on Android devices is simply the initial default. An Android smartphone user can easily change the default search engine, delete the preinstalled Google search app or replace it with another search engine’s app.
Gannett CEO:Here's why we are suing Google for deceptive business practices
Even DOJ’s own expert fatally undermined its case. The expert admitted that, when given a choice of default search engines on a new smartphone, consumers voluntarily choose Google "more than 90% of the time."
In fact, Google remains just as popular in Europe even after the European Union required it to offer users a choice of default search engines on new phones upon setting up.
Ultimately, the DOJ lawsuit rests on the paternalistic theory that Google’s search dominance must be bad even though consumers overwhelmingly prefer and self-select for its product. Successfully obtaining market share by offering a superior product is not an antitrust violation.
This case should be added to the long list of Biden’s losses in antitrust cases.
Barbara Comstock is a former congresswoman and delegate from Virginia and a senior adviser at Baker Donelson. She also was a senior Justice Department official during the Bush administration.
veryGood! (5166)
Related
- Drone footage captures scope of damage, destruction from deadly Louisville explosion
- What kind of perfectionist are you? Take this 7-question quiz to find out
- MacKenzie Scott is shaking up philanthropy's traditions. Is that a good thing?
- RHONJ: Teresa Giudice's Wedding Is More Over-the-Top and Dramatic Than We Imagined in Preview
- Ariana Grande's Brunette Hair Transformation Is a Callback to Her Roots
- In Mount Everest Region, World’s Highest Glaciers Are Melting
- Author Aubrey Gordon Wants To Debunk Myths About Fat People
- Oversight Committee subpoenas former Hunter Biden business partner
- Beyoncé course coming to Yale University to examine her legacy
- Nipah: Using sticks to find a fatal virus with pandemic potential
Ranking
- About Charles Hanover
- On 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Kamala Harris urges federal abortion protections
- 2017’s Extreme Heat, Flooding Carried Clear Fingerprints of Climate Change
- QUIZ: How much do you know about what causes a pandemic?
- 'Yellowstone' premiere: Record ratings, Rip's ride and Billy Klapper's tribute
- Farmers, Don’t Count on Technology to Protect Agriculture from Climate Change
- Unable to Bury Climate Report, Trump & Deniers Launch Assault on the Science
- Why Trump didn't get a mugshot — and wasn't even technically arrested — at his arraignment
Recommendation
-
J.Crew Outlet Quietly Drops Their Black Friday Deals - Save Up to 70% off Everything, Styles Start at $12
-
Michael Bloomberg on Climate Change: Where the Candidate Stands
-
Kids’ Climate Lawsuit Thrown Out by Appeals Court
-
Wheel of Fortune host Pat Sajak retiring
-
Vogue Model Dynus Saxon Charged With Murder After Stabbing Attack
-
In praise of being late: The upside of spurning the clock
-
The Federal Reserve is pausing rate hikes for the first time in 15 months. Here's the financial impact.
-
Ariana Grande’s Rare Tribute to Husband Dalton Gomez Is Just Like Magic