Google fought hard to become the default search engine on smartphones and browsers so it could “manipulate users’ choices,” a human behavior expert testified on behalf of the government in a high-profile antitrust trial Thursday. .
Antonio Rangel, a behavioral economist and professor at the California Institute of Technology, took to the stage on the second day and said Google relies heavily on default settings to keep users engaged with its search engine and other lucrative services. Ta.
“If I can move your eyes, if I can manipulate your gaze, I can manipulate your choices quite a bit,” Rangel said. According to Bloomberg.
Rangel emphasized the importance of default status for acquired customers, saying that users typically stick with the browser that is set as the default option on their computer or smartphone.
“Search engine defaults create a pretty strong bias against defaults,” Rangel said. “Default has a huge impact on consumer decision-making.”
In cross-examination, Google’s lawyers countered by repeating their central argument that consumers choose search engines for quality, not the default state of their phones or browsers.
On Wednesday, Rangel discussed various examples where Google’s actions showed the importance of default settings to its bottom line. This includes how the company’s behavioral economics team generated “hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue” by adding $10 to the default minimum spending setting. Digital advertisers.
Rangel cited a 2015 email in which a Google employee warned that losing the default status of Apple’s Safari browser would be a “code red” for the company.
“Our brand has a good standing among iPhone users… but our position remains very vulnerable if the defaults change,” the email quoted by Rangel said. ing.
The Justice Department alleges in a trial that began Tuesday that the Alphabet unit sought agreements with carriers to gain a strong default position to monopolize searches on smartphones.
The antitrust case, the largest of its kind in more than two decades, will ultimately hinge on whether Google is found to have taken anticompetitive steps to eliminate rivals as it built the search giant. ing.
In Wednesday’s testimony, Rangel questioned Google’s claims that users can easily switch their default search engine, saying that if you get an Android smartphone and its owner switches from Google to Microsoft’s Bing. told the court it required a 10-step process.
“That’s quite a selection friction,” Rangel says.
Google lawyer John Schmidtlein cited an internal Microsoft document from several years ago regarding the use of search engines on early BlackBerry smartphones.
At the time, Verizon Blackberries had Microsoft’s Bing search engine as the default option, while T-Mobile devices used Yahoo and Sprint used Google. According to this document, the majority of users still choose to use Google most of the time.
For example, users who use Verizon Blackberries and Bing as their default search engines still say they use Google 91% of the time.
In opening arguments in the case, Justice Department lawyers said that in order to secure a 91% market share, Google had to “hunt” to major companies, including smartphone makers Apple, Samsung, browser operators like Mozilla, and wireless providers like AT&T. He said he paid more than $10 billion a year. search market.
Chris Barton, a former Google executive who led the company’s partnerships with major carriers from 2004 to 2011, said on Wednesday that the company is well aware of the power of default search settings and is trying to create exclusive deals with partners. He said he had the cooperation of many executives to negotiate his position.
Barton said the company knew that if Microsoft’s Bing service was the default search engine, users “would have a hard time finding Google or changing to Google,” but other Companies are also looking to adopt the same tactics, he added.
The outcome of a lawsuit is not decided by a jury. Instead, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will rule on the outcome.
If the Justice Department wins, Mehta could order Google to break up or cease certain business practices.
Regardless of the outcome, the case will have far-reaching implications for Big Tech companies, including rivals such as Amazon and Apple. These companies also face scrutiny from federal regulators over their business practices.
with post wire
