The “seismic” decision in U.S. v. Google, declaring the search engine giant a monopolist, could be a boon to the federal government’s litany of antitrust cases against major technology companies, experts said.
The ruling marks a significant win for the Department of Justice (DOJ) as it and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continue to litigate far-reaching antitrust cases against tech giants including Amazon, Meta and Apple.
“This is one of the most important monopoly cases that the Department of Justice has brought since the Microsoft case,” said Roger Alford, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, referring to the landmark antitrust decision against Microsoft in 2001.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found Monday that Google has a monopoly over online search and advertising, which it has maintained through exclusive agreements with partners, such as Apple and Samsung, that ensure its search engine is the default on their devices.
“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote.
The decision is “seismic” for the government’s antitrust cases and the industry as a whole, said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
“It’s a sign that the tide is changing in antitrust law generally away from the laissez-faire system that we’ve had for the last 40 years,” she told The Hill.
Allensworth highlighted the court’s holding that “econometric evidence” wasn’t necessary to prove a particular market exists — a preliminary step to determining whether a company has a monopoly.
“For many years, the idea that you had to have hard data to prove a market if you were a plaintiff threw up these really high and kind of arbitrary barriers to lawsuits, especially against companies like in Big Tech, where markets aren’t easily defined using dollars and cents,” Allensworth said.
“That holding, I think, is really important and will create ripples throughout the industry and antitrust law generally,” she added.
Mehta’s finding that Google’s exclusive agreements reduced incentives to invest and innovate in search was also an important shift, according to Allensworth.
“For the last 40 years, only exclusionary effects really have been emphasized in antitrust cases,” she said. “And to say that we worry about that in addition to and in some ways because of the harm to innovation really turns on its head an argument that tech has been using against antitrust enforcement.”
“They’ve been saying, ‘If you come after us with antitrust enforcement, you’re going to lose innovation,’” Allensworth continued, adding, “This case says, essentially, ‘Sure, but there’s another kind of innovation that we worry about too. And in fact, you may actually, as a dominant monopolist, be harming that innovation.’”
The decision generates momentum for the government’s other case against Google and “certainly will embolden” regulators to “put in the resources and time and commitment” toward these cases, Alford said. However, he also emphasized that each monopoly case is unique.
The case decided Monday was brought by the Justice Department in 2020. The agency also brought a separate antitrust suit against Google in 2023, in which it accused the tech giant of monopolizing digital advertising technology.
The department also sued Apple earlier this year, alleging it maintained an illegal monopoly over the smartphone market.
The FTC brought an antitrust suit against Amazon last year, accusing the e-commerce giant of anticompetitive practices that harm third-party sellers and shoppers. The agency also sued Meta in 2020 over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
John Mayo, a professor of economics, business, and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, similarly urged caution about “unduly extrapolating” the Google decision to anticipate wins in other cases.
“I understand that it may buoy the folks over at the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice antitrust division,” Mayo said.
“But as a third-party observer, I would say that every monopolization case that I have ever seen is very idiosyncratic, and outcomes are likely to be determined not by the common label of Big Tech but rather based on the facts of each particular case,” he continued.