Judgment in Google case extremely complex

The antitrust ruling against Google was unexpectedly clear – but the written reasons for the ruling, which have now been published, also show how complex the matter is. Google’s monopoly position is partly based on serious weaknesses of its competitors.

Judgment in book format

The reasons for the judgment, in which Judge Amit Mehta summarized the proceedings once again, comprise an impressive 286 pages. In conclusion, the court came to the conclusion that Google has a monopoly position and is defending and expanding it using unfair means. But there is also a second side: even financially strong competitors are unable to build a similarly good alternative. Much of the case revolved around Google’s agreements with Apple. The search engine company pays its business partner billions every year so that Google search is preset as standard in the Safari browsers on MacOS and iOS. However, witness statements from Apple managers also show that money is only part of the complex.

The only major alternative to Google that would work for the entire global market would currently be Microsoft Bing. “I don’t think there is a price in the world that Microsoft could offer us (to put Bing in Google’s position),” Eddy Cue, Senior Vice President of Services at Apple, explained in the process how The Verge reported.

It’s complicated

He pointed out that Microsoft would have been prepared to give them Bing completely free of charge. All of the advertising revenue from the searches would have gone to Apple – in the Google deal, only a portion goes to Apple. But even this was not an option for the Californian company because the Microsoft search engine is of significantly poorer quality, especially on the mobile devices that are important to Apple.

Many other companies also stated in the proceedings that they had no realistic alternative to Google. Nevertheless, the court ultimately came to the conclusion that Google was indeed responsible for this situation – because Bing is the most visible possible competitor, but the high commissions also ensured that other possible search engine projects, such as those by Apple itself, were not pursued further because they would have started with significantly lower revenues.