Google defends allegations of anti-monopoly: it did not compel anyone to search on Google, and there was no monopoly

Alphabet Inc., the Associated Press, denied the government’s claims in legal records that in Internet searches, the firm breached antitrust laws. Google argued that all the acts targeted by the litigation of the Justice Department were lawful and represented “good faith competition.” People use Google to look for themselves, not compelled, or that most knowledge search tools on the Internet are not easy to find.

The order allowing the beginning of the gathering of evidence was also accepted on Monday by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta and fixed the trial date on September 12, 2023.

Texas and nine other states filed antitrust litigation against Google on December 17, US local time on Wednesday, accusing it of cooperating with Facebook to breach antitrust laws and protect its online advertisement business.

A third of the global market share of the online advertisement industry is dominated by Google, and these states force the business to pay for its losses and pursue “structural relief” which typically involves requiring the business to sell any of its properties.

This litigation is the second major antitrust litigation brought against Google by regulators and the fourth in federal and multi-state cases to curtail the perceived bad conduct by massive networks and technology firms.

The State of Texas wanted a judge in the case to rule that Google breached antitrust laws and ordered a cessation of breaches. It also accused Google of partnering with Facebook, amid fierce competition in Internet advertisement revenues between the two firms, which together accounted for more than half of the worldwide market share.

“As Google’s internal documents show, Google attempted to stifle competition and did so through a series of exclusive strategies, including an illegal Facebook agreement, which is Google’s biggest potential competitive threat,” the complaint said.

A Google spokeswoman replied that in the case, the corporation would protect itself, saying that “the government has made unfounded allegations in court.” She added: “Over the past decade, digital advertising prices have fallen, and the costs of advertising technology have also fallen.” The advertisement infrastructure expenditures of Google are smaller than the industry average.

There are indicators of an intensely competitive market.

More than 80% of Alphabet’s parent company’s earnings are paid for by Google ads sales. But much of Alphabet’s revenues and much of its income come from search ads, Google’s high-margin business. For Google, the sector threatened by Texas is of far less value, and the company primarily advertises on affiliate applications and websites. (small)

[The highest magnitude in 20 years! An antitrust case against Google was brought by the US Department of Justice]

An antitrust case against Google was filed on October 20, local time, by the US Department of Justice. This is also the first antitrust lawsuit in more than 20 years against a technology firm.

The US Department of Justice is set to file a wide variety of accusations in the lawsuit, according to a CNN article that day, arguing that Google has stifled market competition to preserve its tight monopoly in the area of online search.

A year-long antitrust lawsuit against Google has been launched by the US Department of Justice. On the 29th July, the U.S. An monopoly hearing was held by Congress. As observers, the chief executives of the four big technology firms attended.

At the hearing, Democrat David Cicilline, chairman of the US House of Representatives Antitrust Subcommittee, accused Google of exploiting its web portal position, claiming that Google had “switched from a revolving door to the Internet to a walled garden.” He quoted an internal memo to explain that Google workers is debating how “have such a large amount of traffic.” on other pages.

Sundar Pichai, Google CEO, replied by saying that he is not familiar with this text, but he said that online search rivalry exists, such as looking for unique products on some travel or retail websites, i.e. the ‘vertical search’ sector. “When we see vertical search, it verifies what we call competition.”It verifies what we call competition when we see vertical search.

The U.S. on the 6th of October A 449-page study was written by the House of Representatives, alleging that the monopoly power of Amazon, Apple, Yahoo (Facebook), and Google granted them an undue market dominance, requiring tighter control and even segregation. The study claimed that each of the four companies in the entire US economy “is a key channel gatekeeper” and “can choose a winner or loser”

In addition to Google, the aforementioned article also accused Amazon of handling third-party suppliers on the site unfairly, Apple’s app store fees and practices are anti-competitive, and by targeted mergers and acquisitions, Facebook is seeking to remove potential rivals.

Lesson! Google already controls the European search market, fined almost tens of billions of dollars]

The European Union spent 10 years pursuing an antitrust case against Google, eventually fining the firm about $10 billion because the company was using unlawful means to exploit its dominant market position. However, antitrust lawyers and Google rivals have said that the situation has not improved two years after the EU made the aforementioned big decision, and Google still controls the European search engine market.

In the European search engine market, there is still a lack of competition, partially because the EU largely leaves Google responsible for solving the problem. The policy of Google entails charging rivals who wish to be on the selection menu of the Android phone, a move that has drawn rivals’ protests. They asked: Why would Google pay to help it fix anti-competitive behavior?

Like the U.S. In October, the Department of Justice revealed that it had filed an antitrust complaint against Google, and public prosecutors are closely reviewing the results of the European investigation. Data from analytics firm StatCounter reveals that Google appears to control more than 90 percent of the European search engine market, which is about the same as before being prosecuted by the European Union in 2010. Around the same time, rivals involved in online shopping complained that Google is already beneficial to the competitive climate.

Many veterans who have been interested in the EU’s antitrust battle have said that the outcome shows that it is very impossible to regain markets in a market still dominated by technological giants. They have also claimed that the European Union is at a strategic disadvantage and cannot take more stringent action against a US corporation, such as a spin-off.

Clifford Chance Law Firm’s antitrust lawyer Thomas Vinse said: “Politically speaking, the European Union will not spin off the US Internet giants. This is also impossible.” Wen Jie provided for an industry organization called FairSearch Consulting, the organization helped trigger an investigation by the European Commission by filing a lawsuit against Google.

The US Department of Justice lawsuit suggests that if the government wins, it may take more stringent measures to require the court to consider “structural remedies”, which in theory may include requiring the company to sell part of its business. But Gene Kimmelman, the former chief legal counsel of the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, said: “It is harder to win a lawsuit in the United States than it is to win a lawsuit in Europe.”

After being sued by the United States, Kent Walker, Google’s senior vice president of global affairs, stated in a blog post that consumers “use Google services because of their own choice, not being forced to do so, or Because they can’t find a substitute.” He called the Justice Department case “serious flaws” and said it “will not help consumers in any way.”

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda also refuted the statement that “the EU investigation did not prompt it to change its approach.” He said that the EU’s investigation into Google’s role in the online shopping market has led to many changes that have been closely monitored and “generated billions of clicks for more than 600 comparison shopping services.”

Castaneda declined to comment on Google’s continued dominance in the field of general search queries. Google is appealing the EU ruling. On Tuesday, the European Union also announced an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon. A spokesperson for the committee said that the EU “will continue to monitor the market to assess the effectiveness of the remedies applied in the Google case.” She added that the EU plans to propose new legislation to the European Parliament to help “solve it more effectively.” Competition issues in the technology industry.

The European Commission’s Margrethe Vestager, who is in charge of competition policy, said that the EU is considering proposing to give it greater flexibility to resolve “structural competition issues.

Tommaso Valletti, the former chief competition economist of the European Union who participated in the Google case, tweeted and concluded last month: “Although the EU announced an antitrust investigation against Google in 2010 and was under heavy fines, The technology giant has continued to monopolize the search engine market ever since.” Statistics from StatCounter show that search engines such as Bing, Yahoo, Yandex and DuckDuckGo only account for a small market share.

US federal and multi-state prosecutors carefully studied the European investigation of Google, trying to learn from it. Last year, several state attorneys general investigating Google hired a consultant who participated in the EU investigation, Cristina Caffarra. She is a British economist and consultant and previously advised the Russian technology company Yandex. Yandex’s complaints against Google helped launch an EU investigation. Kafala explained many of the “limitations” of the European approach, including the power it gave Google to design its own remedies.

Many of the allegations in the 60-page lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice are consistent with the findings of the European Union: Google uses illegal means to ensure that its search engine and applications are widely adopted by mobile phone manufacturers and mobile network operators, who operate the mobile network Businesses often determine the specifications of mobile phones used in their networks.

The EU investigation ended in 2018. The investigation found that Google requires Android phone manufacturers to pre-install the Google search engine and Chrome browser as a condition for authorizing the use of the Google Play application store, which is a feature that any Android phone cannot do without. The investigation also found that Google paid many mobile phone manufacturers and mobile network operators in exchange for their exclusive pre-installed Google search engine.

The EU concluded: “These practices have made competitors lose opportunities to innovate and compete in certain areas, and also deprive European consumers of the benefits that European consumers can gain from effective competition in the important mobile sector.

The lawyers said that the European Union imposed a fine of $5.1 billion on Google and ordered the company to stop anti-competitive behavior within 90 days, but the agency basically asked Google to propose and take changes to correct these violations. Wen Jie said that the European Union did unofficially hit back against a remedy proposed by Google, when the latter proposed to adjust the contract signed with the mobile phone manufacturer, which the European Union believed was not enough.

DuckDuckGo’s general counsel Megan Gray (Megan Gray) said that the remedial measures taken by Google did not change much. He said: “Google notified all Android phones in Europe in the spring of 2019 that other search engines can be installed. Even if users choose and download DuckDuckGo, this does not change any default search engine settings on the phone, so the impact is minimal.”

Google also gives competitors the opportunity to bid for new phones equipped with Google’s Android software, and occupy a place in the search engine selection menu. Gray said competitors are angry with the idea of ​​paying Google to help it “correct anti-competitive behavior.”

Google stated that its offer is a “fair and objective way to determine which search providers are included on the selection screen.” It allows search providers to independently determine how much they value appearing on the selection screen. This bid. Google also said that if there is no competitor’s search engine bidding for these positions, it will randomly select competitors to display for free.

After another investigation, the European Union imposed a fine of US$2.8 billion on Google in 2017, concluding that Google had “abused its dominant market position” to provide Google Shopping with an “illegal advantage” in search results. Google Shopping is Google’s product advertising banner at the top of the search results screen.

The European Union concluded that Google downgraded rival shopping sites, such as Foundem in the United Kingdom. The company complained to the European Union that Google unfairly suppressed its website in search results, which helped trigger an investigation. After the European Union ordered Google to stop its anti-competitive practices, Google offered companies such as Foundem the opportunity to bid for Google Shopping Bar advertising space. Foundem CEO Shivaun Raff (Shivaun Raff) said the company refused to bid for these ads because doing so would harm consumers.

Damien Geradin, a Brussels lawyer who often represents companies that oppose Google in antitrust matters, said that within the European Union, Google’s case was “considered a failure”. He said: “These are all rulings made in accordance with principles. I think the US Department of Justice can find a lot of information there. But in the final analysis, remedies are not in place. To some extent, the most meaningful part of the EU approach is to help. The American action has been successful