Google Antitrust: Billions at Stake, Internet Future on the Line

Every time you use Apple’s Safari browser on devices like the iPhone to search the web, it’s typically Google that processes your query. This is because most users don’t change their default search engine from Google. What’s less known is the hefty fee Google pays to secure this default spot: as of May 2021, Google was shelling out over $1 billion monthly to Apple, with annual payments totaling about $20 billion in 2022.

These staggering sums were revealed in an ongoing major antitrust lawsuit against Google, which has recently advanced to its final stages. The case could potentially transform the way millions of Americans search online and might even influence the intense competition in artificial intelligence.

On Thursday, the U.S. Justice Department made its last presentation in the trial, which began under the Trump administration. They aimed to convince a federal judge that Google has unlawfully monopolized the online search market through lucrative agreements like those with Apple. The closing arguments are set to conclude on Friday, with a decision from District Judge Amit Mehta expected later in the year after a 10-week trial that took place last fall.

The implications of this trial are significant for the tech industry and could impact a series of tech antitrust cases in the pipeline. The government argues that Google’s contracts make it the default search engine on countless devices globally, which helps it amass vast amounts of data. This data supposedly feeds a cycle where Google enhances its services at the expense of its competitors. During the trial, Microsoft contended that Google was using its search data to gain an upper hand in developing artificial intelligence.

Google, however, maintains that its search engine dominates because it is superior, and that it underpins its Android operating system, which competes with Apple. Google also argues that Apple and other partners could easily choose another search provider if they wished.

DOJ lawyers have challenged this by questioning why Google would spend tens of billions annually to remain the default search provider if switching is as simple as Google claims. This spending, they suggest, indicates anticompetitive behavior.

During the closing arguments, Judge Mehta, who has not yet hinted at his leanings, questioned whether Google’s dominance could realistically be challenged given the massive investments required not just in technology but in securing contracts like those with Apple.

John Schmidtlein, Google’s attorney, argued that U.S. antitrust law is designed to protect the competitive process rather than individual competitors.

The decision by Judge Mehta is eagerly awaited and could lead to further proceedings to determine possible penalties for Google if they are found at fault.