🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
On Aug. 5, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that Google violated antitrust laws to preserve its monopoly in online search. Putting a fine point on it, the judge wrote in his decision: "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly." This landmark ruling marks the first major antitrust verdict against a tech giant in the modern digital era. It's the right decision, and long overdue. It's also poised to reshape the tech industry for the better.
According to the case, Google's anticompetitive actions include paying billions of dollars annually for exclusive agreements with companies including Apple and Samsung. These deals ensure Google as the default search engine on all their devices and browsers. As stated in the court's ruling, these agreements "foreclose 45 percent of the general search text ads market."
It's hard to disagree with the judge's assertion here. These agreements prevent any potential competitor from achieving the scale necessary to pose a challenge. This enables Google to charge advertisers higher prices without competitive pressure. All the while, Google uses its search engine to prioritize its own products and content, disadvantaging competitors in search results.
Google's counterargument was that consumers can easily change their preferred search provider. But there's no evidence that consumers believe that or do it. Over 90 percent of web searches are made via Google, which generated over $300 billion in revenue in 2023.
Flush with cash, Google has made more than 260 acquisitions over the years, for a total price tag of more than $40 billion. Every step of the way, Google has bolstered its moat by buying strategic technology and data companies. This includes the Android operating system (which boasts over 40 percent of mobile market share in the U.S. in 2024); the online ad vendor DoubleClick (allowing Google to optimize its ad-serving tech); the navigation app Waze (enabling Google to scoop up troves of user data); and video-sharing giant YouTube (which functions as the second-largest search engine in the world—albeit for content it hosts).
Data is the new oil. First and foremost, Google is a data company. It aggregates massive amounts of our data, further enhancing its search capabilities and dominance. Google has spent more than 25 years watching and targeting us based on our purchase histories, locations, searches, links we click, topics in our emails, and more. The company promoted a brilliantly deceptive motto for years: "Don't Be Evil." In a de facto confession, Google deep-sixed this masquerade in 2018.
There's much more. Big Tech behemoths are the new barons in town. They wield unprecedented global influence, capable of shaping our thoughts, opinions, purchases, and votes on a scale surpassing any nation or government. These giants pull the algorithmic levers to decide which stories you see, and which you don't. This contributes to the manipulation of our thoughts and opinions from behind their curated (based on our data and their AI) newsfeed curtains.
Google is a prime example (as is Meta, in the personal social networking sphere, where 37 percent of users get their news). Most news publishers receive the majority of their traffic from these and a handful of other sites. This creates a deeply problematic quid pro quo. Google/Meta can limit the visibility of news outlets publishing content they deem unfavorable about them or issues their executives have opinions on. Conversely, they can boost and promote news sources and articles that align with their interests.
This verdict and pending remedies in Google's case are particularly important. They will influence a string of ongoing antitrust cases against other Big Tech companies. The DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging it hindered consumers from switching away from iPhones; the FTC has sued Meta for suppressing emerging rivals, and Amazon for exploiting sellers on its platform.
As of yet, the harshest penalty ever received by a Big Tech company was Meta's $5 billion fine by the Federal Trade Commission in 2019 for the company's privacy violations. Yet this could have been over $7 trillion if maximally enforced. Tellingly, Meta saw its stock price surge immediately after the FTC's fine was announced, more than covering the cost. (Notably, in 2024 the FTC is attempting to amend that settlement and increase the fine.)
Why have the penalties traditionally been so light? Because Big Tech spends millions per year on lobbyists. Of Congressional members with jurisdiction over privacy and antitrust matters, 94 percent have received contributions from a Big Tech political action committee or lobbyist.
New antitrust remedies are required to address this unique challenge. Big Tech's dominance over data and content must be derailed. New policies supporting startups and smaller competitors are critical. Increased competition is essential to curb Big Tech's outsized influence over our media, news, personal data, and democracy. The last tech giant to face antitrust penalties was Microsoft nearly 25 years ago. Today, we're in a different era.
Mitigating Google's dominance will be determined in a separate hearing. Doing so is a tall order. It's one thing to find a giant guilty—but what penalties will have the desired impact of liberating the marketplace? There must be mandates to prevent Google from making exclusive agreements that block out potential competitors, promote its own products at the top of search results, or other self-serving actions. There also must be severe, enforceable penalties for non-compliance. As one guidepost, the court can look to the U.K.'s Online Safety Act which can even mandate jail time for executives who knowingly ignore or violate the rules.
Breaking these giants up—starting with Google as the first domino—will be transformational. The online tech industry is only about 30 years old. It's too soon to close the doors on the free market and allow a small handful of tech companies to rule without challenge. We've barely scratched the surface on how all this emerging technology can best serve the consumer. Antitrust laws are intended to support free and competitive business environments in which the American entrepreneurial spirit can thrive. Let's have at it.
Mark Weinstein is a world-renowned tech thought leader and privacy expert. He is the founder of the social network MeWe, which he left in July 2022, to write the book on the intersection of social media, mental health, privacy, civil discourse and democracy. "Restoring Our Sanity Online." is being published on Sept. 24, by WILEY.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
