WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has accused Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly as the dominant internet search engine with allegations of using billions of dollars to stifle competition. In a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit, Google’s lawyers defended the company’s position, stating that its superiority and customer satisfaction speak for themselves.
The 10-week lawsuit saw the U.S. government, a coalition of states, and Google make their closing arguments on Friday to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. The outcome of the case will determine whether Google violated antitrust laws by holding a monopoly as a search engine.
One of the focal points of the trial was Google’s extensive contracts with companies like Apple to ensure its dominance as the default search engine on various devices. Evidence presented revealed that Google spends over $20 billion annually on such contracts, indicating the importance of securing its position and fending off competitors, according to Justice Department lawyers.
Google, however, contends that consumers have the freedom to choose other search engines but ultimately prefer its services due to their quality. Testimony from companies like Apple reinforced the notion that they partnered with Google because they considered its search engine superior.
The tech giant also argued that the government’s definition of the search engine market is too narrow, emphasizing its competition in targeted searches from platforms like Amazon, AirBnB, and Yelp. Judge Mehta questioned whether social media companies truly compete in the same market, highlighting differences in advertising methods.
Additionally, the government raised concerns about Google’s document retention practices, accusing the company of purposefully deleting chats to conceal evidence of monopolistic behaviors. Despite Google defending its practices as reasonable, Judge Mehta expressed disappointment in the lack of oversight in preserving documents.
As the case awaits a ruling from Judge Mehta, potential implications could involve a need for remedies to promote competition in the search engine market. The government’s stance on potential remedies remains undisclosed as the legal proceedings continue.