When the US Department of Justice announced that Google Search Engine violated the Sherman Act, the message made me think of the US lawsuit against Microsoft regarding the Internet Explorer case. It was a long process, and I just remembered the case result. How many people still remember the case and the result?
Then, I read some articles that support Google's perspective. Google said the company doesn't sell or charge for the search engine service, so the US DOJ's market definition and relevant market are improper.
Enforcing antitrust laws in the digital age is a complex task. The authorities are aware that some traditional antitrust tools are no longer sufficient. They need innovative solutions to tackle the unique challenges posed by digital issues. While some concepts remain the same, old-school theories and toolkits need to be updated to effectively regulate the digital market.
While Google may not charge for its search engine services, it does profit from ranking search results through its Internet advertisement business. The ad-tech business creates a double-sided market. As I await the outcome of the US DOJ and several states filing a joint lawsuit against Google's advertisement monopoly, it's clear that this issue is just as significant as the search engine case.
Back to see the Google search engine monopoly case. Some users may use other search services to protect their privacy. However, many people still use the Google search service without alternatives. Some applications use the Google search engine. In the Microsoft Internet Explorer case, users have many other alternative web browsers.
Google pays billions yearly to market its search engine as the default search engine for mobiles or other devices.
If Google divests the search engine business or sells it to another company, users will probably need to pay for the service or spend more money on their devices. That will be an obstacle to making everyone own an affordable device to access the Internet, which is not good for the Internet world. We hope to close the digital gap with an affordable device and the Internet for everyone. Some students depend on their mobile phones to access the Internet and study.
Antitrust law cases involving big tech are always long. The Microsoft Internet Explorer bundling case took almost three years to achieve the settlement.
Of course, Google says it will appeal.
I am looking forward to seeing the result. I expect the antitrust authority to carefully evaluate the benefits and harm to protect the consumer and the market.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
留言
發佈留言
請勿匿名留言，待審核後才會出現。