Big Tech Antitrust Trials

Herbert Hovenkamp writes that the court presiding over the Google Ad Tech case gave the government an important win. However, by relying on the per se tying rule instead of rule of reason, the court perpetuated a flawed court precedent that can preclude serious market analysis for competitive harms.

Steven C. Salop argues that as part of any remedy outcome from the Google Search case, Google cannot be permitted to enter agreements with...

In a new report from the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Alissa Cooper, Jasper van den Boom, and Zander Arnao examine how to make remedies most effective in the Google Search antitrust case. They argue that restoring competition in online search requires a comprehensive package of remedies that takes into account the multiple levers by which Google Search built, maintains, and could rebuild its monopoly.

Steven C. Salop writes that only Google’s full divestiture of its Android operating system can avoid incentives on the part of Android and Google to preference Google’s apps, including its search engine, and stifle competition.

Over the past four years, antitrust scrutiny has increasingly focused on large technology firms. Ginger Zhe Jin and Liad Wagman discuss the complexities of antitrust enforcement and policy in the digital age, highlighting the challenges of promoting innovation while fostering competition, and areas where consumer protection and antitrust are colliding or are set to collide. To that end, the authors identify several key questions that the next administration of the United States should address to better delineate between legal and illegal competitive practices in the digital age, with implications for the broader economy.

Steve Salop explores the basis for warranting strong remedies in the Google Search case and the set of remedies Judge Amit Mehta might consider for restoring competition in the search market by jump-starting the competitive process.

On September 10, the highest judicial authority in the EU, the Court of Justice, will rule on Google Shopping, closing a case opened 15 years ago and instrumental in changing the narrative on Big Tech. Christian Bergqvist summarizes the history of Google Shopping and discusses its possible outcomes.

Erik Hovenkamp reviews the findings of Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling against Google for monopolizing the internet search market and discusses what the case will mean for the other ongoing Big Tech cases and the future of antitrust.

A United States federal court has found Google in breach of the Sherman Act by pursuing default status for Google Search and Google Chrome. However, Google's motives and the precise ways in which Google Search’s default status serves its interests remain poorly understood by the public and the antitrust community. They pertain to preventing users from migrating to competitors’ offerings in general and, in particular, to capturing user migration to next-generation platforms to access and search the internet. Understanding this motive will be essential in the calibration of forthcoming remedies and provide lessons for future cases against Google and other tech companies also confronted with user migration.

According to a poll conducted by ProMarket at the Stigler Center Antitrust and Competition Conference, experts were skeptical about the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple, with 54% believing it had the lowest odds among the five Big Tech antitrust cases of a ruling in favor of the government. In contrast, the experts were more optimistic about the government's chances in the Google AdTech case, with 52% saying it had the best odds for a government win, and another 21% favoring the Google Search case.