Google

Previous plaintiffs have argued unsuccessfully that Google’s Jedi Blue agreement with Facebook is anticompetitive and illegal. The agreement grants Facebook preferential access to Google’s dominant digital advertisement system in exchange for not building competing technologies. The plaintiffs’ challenges to Jedi Blue would have been on stronger ground had they argued that Jedi Blue is compelling evidence of illegal monopoly maintenance, as occurred in Microsoft, writes Joshua B. Gray.

Herbert Hovenkamp reviews Epic Games’ lawsuits against Apple and Google for restraining users’ ability to access Epic’s offerings through third-party app stores. A comparison of the two ecosystems sheds light on what remedies would improve benefits to consumers and how the Department of Justice’s own lawsuit against Apple may fare.

Judge Amit Mehta will shortly provide his remedy to Google’s monopoly in internet search. Fiona Scott Morton and Paul Heidhues argue that the remedy must include a cap on Google’s payments to the mobile phone manufacturers, carriers, and web browsers that propelled its monopoly. Because any outright ban risks harming Google’s current partners in the short term, Judge Mehta should consider pursuing a flexible ban that instead limits the revenue these partners can receive from Google in order to encourage market entry and competition.

Karina Montoya reflects on the end of the remedies phase of the Department of Justice’s case against Google for monopolizing the online search market. She argues that Google’s warnings against divestiture of its browser, Chrome, fall short and that a breakup will benefit the security of the internet, innovation, and users.

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 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.

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.

Judge Amit Mehta's ruling declaring Google a monopolist in search represents a significant development in the ongoing debate about Big Tech's market dominance. This decision, stemming from a United States Department of Justice lawsuit, highlights the culmination of years of discussions and research on antitrust issues in the technology sector, particularly surrounding Google's search practices.