Robert Epstein: How Google Weakened the Justice Department

A Groundbreaking Case

In a pivotal case—USA vs. Google LLC—the federal court is set to deliver a judgment in August 2024, having ruled that Google operates as a monopoly. This situation has sparked significant discussions, though it seems many are overlooking the issue. The federal government’s efforts to rein in Google’s influence, which affects billions globally, can be viewed as a critical intervention. It’s touched on matters like election interference, the education of children, online censorship, opinion manipulation, and the stifling of potential competition.

The case was initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under antitrust laws, similar to the action taken against AT&T decades ago, which resulted in the breakup of the telecom giant into smaller entities known as “Baby Bells.” That precedent hangs over the current case.

Notably, politicians across party lines have long voiced concerns about Google’s dominance. Figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts and Texas Senator Ted Cruz have been vocal in their calls for Google to be dismantled. Former Google investor Roger McNamee has also been advocating for the breakup of the company since 2018.

Following the court ruling, the penalty phase commenced, with U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta considering how to curb Google’s exclusive business practices. His deliberation on a suitable remedy took over a year, leading up to a recent decision.

There were speculations that Judge Mehta might order Google to sell its Chrome browser, which serves as a significant tool for tracking user behavior. Even if losing Chrome would barely faze Google, the browser has immense value—potentially estimated at $50 billion to a buyer. It’s interesting to think about how this might have shifted Google’s own operations.

However, the outcome was far from a breakup. Upon the announcement of the ruling, Google’s stock surged by 8%. Ultimately, Judge Mehta’s main order was relatively minor: he restricted Google from mandating its own search engine as the default, merely affecting a small fragment of its extensive market share in the U.S.

What caught my attention was Mehta’s request for Google to create a “search index,” essentially a comprehensive database for generating search results. This seems to echo earlier proposals I had made about reshaping how search monopolies operate.

Back in 2019, I published an article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek suggesting that Google’s search index could be declared a public resource. From a broader perspective, much of the data within that index is culled from countless websites around the internet, making the argument that it doesn’t solely belong to Google compelling. The internet is a shared space, not owned by any single entity.

By opening up Google’s indexes, it could enable a wave of new search engines that cater to specific interests, fostering competition and diversity in information access.

While the DOJ is gearing up to present this case as a triumph, the reality paints a different picture. It feels like Google has largely evaded serious consequences, continuing to exert its influence over a global audience. Monitoring, censorship, and manipulation persist, and Google appears bolder than ever.