Washington, D.C. – The fate of Google’s search business now rests in the hands of Judge Amit Mehta as closing arguments concluded in a landmark trial on Friday.
The Department of Justice and plaintiff states made their final arguments on Google’s alleged anticompetitive conduct in the general search market, focusing on its potentially illegal conduct in search advertising. The government aims to demonstrate that Google locked up key distribution channels for the general search engine market, making it difficult for potential rivals to emerge as significant threats. This alleged action was believed to have been accomplished through exclusive contracts with phone manufacturers and browser companies to establish Google as the default search engine. If the judge agrees that Google hindered competition in the market, it could support the government’s argument of anticompetitive behavior in the search advertising market.
During the trial, DOJ attorney Kenneth Dintzer referenced the landmark tech monopoly case, US v. Microsoft, drawing comparisons to Google’s current situation. Google’s lead litigator, John Schmidtlein, argued against such comparisons, emphasizing Google’s success with what he deemed a superior product.
Judge Mehta expressed the significance of the case for both Google and the public at the conclusion of the court proceedings on Friday.
The issue of whether Google intentionally deleted or failed to retain potentially crucial documents for the trial loomed over the proceedings. The DOJ raised concerns about Google’s retention policy and the handling of chat history, questioning the company’s transparency and intent.
As the trial progressed, arguments were made regarding Google’s conduct with its search engine marketing tool SA360 and its alleged preference for Google search ads over Bing ads, potentially delaying features for rivals.
Mehta seemed to express some sympathy for the government’s perspective on potential anticompetitive behavior while acknowledging the robust nature of advertising alternatives to Google. The trial also delved into pricing practices and the extent of Google’s market influence in the advertising industry.
The trial now awaits Judge Mehta’s decision on how to address the issues raised, including the absence of certain crucial documents and the potential implications for Google’s business practices. As both parties prepare for a second antitrust face-off over advertising technology in the fall, the outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications for the tech giant and the future of competition in the industry.