A federal judge on Monday ruled in a historic decision that Google violated federal antitrust law in order to gain dominance in the online search market, a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for the future of the internet.
Judge Amit Mehta sided with the Justice Department, which has argued throughout the landmark case that Google relies on anti-competitive payments to Apple, Samsung, AT&T and others to ensure its search engine is enabled by default on most smartphones — amounting to $26.3 billion in 2021 alone.
Mehta ruled that the default search engine agreement was “exclusionary and had anti-competitive effects.”
“Google is a monopoly and has acted as a monopoly to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in a lengthy opinion in the case.
The ruling marks the first time in more than two decades that the Department of Justice has won an antitrust case against a major technology company.
The ruling could upend Google’s lucrative digital advertising business, which brings in more than $300 billion in annual revenue.
A separate trial will be held to determine possible damages.
The Justice Department has not yet said what kind of relief it will seek, but experts have suggested the court could force Google to stop pursuing the default deal.
Google did not immediately respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment on the ruling.
Justice Department lawyers argued that the payment was crucial because Google has built a commanding 90% share of the online search market, dwarfing such distant rivals as Microsoft Corp. and DuckDuck.Go. Google has denied wrongdoing and argued that the deal was simply fair compensation.
The weeks-long trial featured numerous high-profile witnesses, including Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who argued that Google’s default contract “completely belies” the concept of user choice in online search.
Pichai, along with Google’s legal team, argued that people choose Google’s search engine because it is a better product than those offered by rivals.
Mehta found that the default state served as a “huge, largely invisible advantage over competitors.”
“Defaults are very valuable real estate,” Mehta said. “Many users are stuck with default search, and Google receives billions of queries through those access points every day.”
Google faced intense scrutiny during the trial after it was revealed it had allowed troves of employee chat transcripts to be deleted despite a court order, failing to preserve important evidence.
The Justice Department asked Mehta to impose sanctions on Google over its implementation of a policy that automatically deletes employee messages after 24 hours.
Despite slamming Google’s actions as “negligent” in his closing arguments, Judge Mehta declined to impose sanctions on the company’s conduct, arguing that “it does not affect the Court’s assessment of Google’s liability” in the case.
“The court’s decision not to impose sanctions on Google should not be understood as an acceptance of Google’s failure to preserve evidence of the chats,” Mehta said. “Companies that hold employees responsible for identifying and preserving relevant evidence do so at their own peril.”
The judge’s decision is just one of several legal woes threatening Google’s business empire: A separate Justice Department lawsuit alleging the company maintains an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology is scheduled to go to trial this fall.
The Department of Justice has also filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, and the Federal Trade Commission has filed suit against Meta and Amazon.
