Google: we are not a monopolist (:

I’m Alan Chapell. I’ve been working at the intersection of privacy, competition, advertising and music for decades and I’m now a pundit writing for The Monopoly Report.

Our latest Monopoly Report podcast is out with my discussion of children’s privacy with attorney Gary Kibel of the law firm Davis & Gilbert. 

The last days of the Google search antitrust remedies trial

We’re now one step closer to a final decision on remedies in the DOJ search antitrust trial against Google. In my view, the outcome of this trial will have a bigger impact on the digital media space than anything else taking place in 2025 - including the DOJ ad tech trial.

Today, I’m going to focus on the proposed findings of fact in connection with the search antitrust trial that were filed by the parties at the end of May. (See DOJ’s filing here and Google’s here). At a combined 500+ pages, they represent each side’s last word to Judge Mehta in terms of which remedies should be imposed and how they’d like the Judge to perceive the facts surround the case as a whole.

And as has been said before on these pages - the proposals could be characterized as a “tale of two cities” as Google and the Government seem to have wildly different interpretations of how things have transpired over these past several months.

Google’s Proposal

Google’s primary argument is that the Government’s proposed remedies are not only unsupported by the record, but also wrong as a matter of law, economics, and technology. As is often the case with Google, their key points include a heavy dose of gaslighting, melodrama and misdirection. They can summarized as follows (with me adding in my two cents in italics):

1. The exclusive contractual arrangements Google had in place didn’t harm competition

   Alan’s take: say what, now?

2. The remedies as proposed by the Government would harm competition, create uncertainty and disrupt the marketplace - for example, by threatening the viability of Firefox.

   Alan’s Take: The “harm competition” argument is chutzpah coming from a company with Google’s market share and decades long track record. I don’t think it’s even debatable that the remedies here will be disruptive and break things. Should Firefox have seen this coming years ago? Also, we’ve reached a point where status quo is bad enough for the health of the ecosystem that not taking action poses the bigger threat.  

3. The Government’s proposed remedies would not benefit consumers (who btw just love Google. #Popular)

4. Education and choice screens are useless

   Alan’s take: Not sure I disagree, but funny that Google just spent a year pushing for choice screens to solve the TPC deprecation issue.

5. The Government’s plan would break the Internet and can’t realistically be limited to the U.S. market.

   Alan’s take: I suspect that the EU, UK, Canada and a bunch of other countries would gladly sign up for a global version of what the DOJ is proposing. Btw, let’s not pretend that the Internet isn’t already pretty broken.

6. The Government’s plan is unprecedented.

   Alan’s take: well… that really depends on how hard and how far back you’re willing to look. The deck has been stacked in favor of monopolists in recent memory, but the pro-monopolist sentiment appears to be changing.

In short, Google believes that the remedy here should be limited to enjoining Google from all those exclusive distribution agreements. And that’s assuming that one even thinks that Google has done anything wrong - as they are still planning to appeal the initial decision by Judge Mehta.

The Government’s Proposal

The Government argues that only a comprehensive and robust set of remedies can restore competition in general search and search advertising. While Google’s proposal could be viewed as the same old song, the Government’s position is closer to a cacophony of belt and suspenders ideas.

The Government’s proposal emphasizes that the remedies are not about guaranteeing a particular market structure or outcome, but about removing the artificial advantages Google has accumulated through years of exclusionary conduct. And the Government especially wants to ensure that those advantages don’t automatically extend into the age of AI. More on that later….

The Government’s proposed findings of fact in connection with the remedies trial can be summarized as follows (including my commentary in italics):

• Distribution and Defaults - Google’s monopoly in search has been maintained primarily through its ability to pay for default status and preinstallation across the most important distribution channels—mobile devices, browsers, and carriers. Prohibiting these payments, and requiring unbiased, user-friendly choice screens, will force competition for distribution, giving rivals a real chance to reach users.

• Alan’s take: I’m still not a fan of choice screens, but anything that pushes back on Google’s distribution apparatus strikes me as a net positive for competition. Here’s hoping that the Government was able to make the distribution argument clearly and convincingly to the Judge.

• Scale, Data, and Syndication - Google’s scale advantage in user data, web indexing, and ad data has created a self-reinforcing “chicken-and-egg” barrier for rivals. By requiring Google to share this data (with privacy protections) and to syndicate its search and ad results, the remedies give competitors the ability to improve quality, innovate, and attract users and advertisers.

  Alan’s take: I have a love/hate for these types of arrangements. Interoperability has been wildly undervalued, but also….I do not look forward to spending my next decade chasing Google for data.

• Chrome Divestiture - Chrome’s 60% market share represents a critical distribution channel. Divesting Chrome from Google would (at least in theory) allow it to become a neutral platform, open to partnerships with any search engine or GenAI provider, further lowering distribution barriers and fostering innovation.

• Alan’s take: If you can’t force the divestiture of Chrome, don’t bother with the rest - and let’s just plan to be back in antitrust court in a few years.

• Self-Preferencing and Exclusion - Google is barred from self-preferencing its own products (e.g., Gemini, Circle to Search, AICore) in Chrome and Android, and from retaliating against partners that work with rivals so as to (in theory) prevent Google from using its market power to foreclose competition in GenAI.

• Alan’s take: Yes! Also, I’d love to see more rules directed to platform self-preferencing more broadly.

• Transparency, Switching Costs, and Public Education - Proposed DOJ remedies include requirements for transparent ad reporting, true exact-match keyword options, and open data export for advertisers. Choice screens and a public education campaign (possibly with incentive payments) will inform users of their options and make switching easier, counteracting the effects of habit and brand lock-in.

  Alan’s take: Transparency requirements are my second favorite part of the remedies - and might just be able to limit the shell game being played by Google. No huge objection to public eduction, but at some point we should discuss what the desired outcome is - and whether the public education achieves those outcomes. We’ve spent lots of time/effort placing icons on ads in digital media - was it worth it?

• Technical Committee and Oversight - A Technical Committee will oversee implementation, privacy, security, and technical disputes, ensuring that remedies are effective and adapt to new technologies and market changes.

• Alan’s take: Dear DOJ, can I be in charge of nominating people for this committee? Seriously, I hope the DOJ learns from what’s gone on between Google and the UK Competition & Markets Authority.

Who cares about search if the future lay in AI?

There’s an argument being made that none of this really matters because search as we know it is rapidly giving way to AI Answer engines. I’ll just say this - if Google Gemini isn’t treated as a search access point in the remedies, we’re going to be extending Google’s monopoly into the AI era.

I’ve hit my word count limit for this week. But will probably come back with additional thoughts on the impact of Gemini while most of you are basking in Cannes.

__________________________________________________________________________

If there’s an area that you want to see covered on these pages, if you agree/disagree with something I’ve written, if you want tell me you dig my music, or if you just want to yell at me, please reach out to me on LinkedIn or in the comments below.

Finally, you should pre-order Ari’s book. If I’m not getting a free copy, you probably aren’t getting one either. So just buy it already…!