In October 2020 the DOJ filed against Google along with a number of other Attorney Generals from 10 plus states. Here is the general gist of the suit:

The Complaint alleges that Google’s anticompetitive practices have had harmful effects on competition and consumers. Google has foreclosed any meaningful search competitor from gaining vital distribution and scale, eliminating competition for a majority of search queries in the United States. By restricting competition in search, Google’s conduct has harmed consumers by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data), lessening choice in search, and impeding innovation. By suppressing competition in advertising, Google has the power to charge advertisers more than it could in a competitive market and to reduce the quality of the services it provides them. Through filing the lawsuit, the Department seeks to stop Google’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition for American consumers, advertisers, and all companies now reliant on the internet economy.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that Google has unlawfully maintained monopolies in search and search advertising by:

• Entering into exclusivity agreements that forbid preinstallation of any competing search service.
• Entering into tying and other arrangements that force preinstallation of its search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference.
  • Note the market share: Chrome – ~70%, Safari 3.7%, FF 7.7% all with Google Search
  • Note: Even higher if you use Statista which has Safari and Firefox combined for ~17%

• Entering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search tools.
  • Note: Droid 73%, Apple 26.5% per Stat Counter that is 99.5% of phones
• Generally using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers, and other search access points, creating a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization.

So at a high level that is what this episode talks about – those 3 main points and what is going to happen next (possibly and most likely).

Disclaimer – since this again is an episode about law we want to remind you that this write up is not quotes but a general summary. This also goes for the transcription since it is done by AI and thus not 100% accurate.

Google and Google Properties

We talk about a number of Google owned properties including how YouTube is one of the largest sites in terms of traffic and searches.

A recent study by Moz of 2.1M searches and 766K videos, YouTube accounted for 94% of all video carousel results on page one of Google, leaving little room for competition. Thanks to Dr. Pete for help as we (Dave) missed this study.

Google Antitrust Documents and Resources

• Full DOJ Press Release
• Episode 78 – Google and Antitrust
• Episode 123 – Interview with Former FTC Commish Maureen Ohlhausen
• DOJ Tweet
  • “Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms…Competition in this industry is vitally important, which is why today’s challenge against Google…for violating antitrust laws is a monumental case both for the DOJ and for the American people.” — AG Barr
• Google’s Response
  • “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to, not because they’re forced to, or because they can’t find alternatives.”
• News Coverage
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/antitrust-google.html
  • https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/21/google-antitrust-charges-what-is-next
  • https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/google-antitrust-suit-shows-its-lost-its-halo-rivals-say.html
  • https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/antitrust-suit-against-google-watershed-moment-0

Microsoft Antitrust Compared to Google Antitrust

We do talk about this a bit later on as Dave references a few articles, including some of the following points from a 2019 NY Times article:

5 Lessons From Microsoft’s Antitrust Woes, by People Who Lived It

1. Antitrust law may be old, but it can apply to the modern tech industry.
2. Consumer harm extends well beyond the price of products.
3. Fight, but be flexible.
4. Politics and public opinion matter a lot.
5. The Microsoft case changed the industry … or so it seems.

Interesting point from the article:

Mr. Yoffie said, as he has studied the early years of Google’s rise. Without the restrictions on its behavior that were in the settlement in 2001, Microsoft could have unleashed the tactics it used against Netscape, like pressuring personal computer makers to agree to exclusive deals that would feature Microsoft’s Bing search service and exclude Google search.

“Google may have never emerged in its current form if Microsoft had not been restrained,” Mr. Yoffie said.

Baby Googles

While just a theory from 2011, again this is PURE fiction from Danny Sullivan long before he worked at Google, the Baby Google idea has been mentioned by others. We asked Steve about it a bit and here is the breakup as Danny did in his SEL article What Would A Google Antitrust Breakup Look Like?.

• Gmetrics (Analytics & Shopping Services)
• Gommunication (Communications)
• Cloud (Apps & Content)
• AdSense (Ad Products)
• Google (Search Products)

Full Transcript

] Matt Siltala: [00:00:00 ] Welcome to another exciting episode of the business of digital podcast, featuring your host, Matt  and Dave roar. Hey guys, excited to have everybody join us on another one of these business of digital podcast episodes. And today we

Steve Cernak: [00:00:17 ] kind of have a round

Matt Siltala: [00:00:18 ] two, Dave, if you’re. Over there listening. How’s it going, bud?

Dave Rohrer: [00:00:22 ] It is round two. And there’s big updates though. So, yeah.

Matt Siltala: [00:00:25 ] And so what we’re talking about is, uh, we did, uh, an episode a while back on the Google. anti-trust

Dave Rohrer: [00:00:30 ] almost two years, by the way. Oh,

Matt Siltala: [00:00:31 ] hasn’t been that long,

Dave Rohrer: [00:00:32 ] but literally almost two years to the day from recording to recording.

Matt Siltala: [00:00:36 ] Well, this year has been an anomaly, so.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been two years, but this year is kind of like a blur anyway, 20, 20. But anyway, um, if any of those that have listened to the Google anti-trust one before, uh, we are going to be, um, pleasure to be joined with, uh, Stephen Cernik he’s partner of bono law in Detroit, Michigan. And we also have Elmer Boutine [00:01:00 ] who’s the SEO director at GTB, a Detroit area agency.

And so Steve Elme