Justice Department to sue Google over search dominance

[Random_Person1234]

Summary

 The United States Justice Department has an impending lawsuit to sue Alphabet, the parent company of Google. The lawsuit is mainly going to be focused on Googles search dominance.

 

Quotes

Quote

The Department of Justice’s impending lawsuit against Google has narrowed to focus on the company’s power over internet search, a decision that could set off a cascade of separate lawsuits from states in ensuing weeks over the Silicon Valley giant’s dominance in other business segments.

 

 

My thoughts

 I think it will be very interesting to see this lawsuit play out due to what would happen to Google and Alphabet if the DOJ wins. Also the article says that other states may sue Alphabet over other concerns, which will also be interesting.

 

Sources 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/technology/justice-dept-case-google-search-dominance.html?referringSource=articleShare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/21/google-antitrust-state-ags/

https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-antitrust-battles-what-you-need-to-know-faq/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/google-antitrust-justice-department.html?smid=tw-share

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/justice-department-states-google-antitrust-suit-419991

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/google-antitrust-doj-409291

[Doqtori]

TIL Google has a parent company

[Spotty]

Quote

While details are still being completed, the case on search is expected to focus on Google’s agreements with other companies like Apple, which set its search engine as the default option for users on iPhones and other devices. Those agreements give Google’s search engine an advantage over other rivals.

 

...

 

Google controls about 90 percent of web searches globally, and rivals have complained that the company extended that power by making its search and browsing tools the defaults on many smartphones. 

I think that's a fair point to make. Those deals Google has made with other companies to make their search default is likely what will bite them in the end.

 

There are established alternatives in the market. People can use duckduckgo and Bing if they want to, but there's a reason why Google is synonymous with search engine.

 

From the article there may be further lawsuits around Google ads.

Quote

Separately, an investigation by state attorneys general of Google’s behavior in digital advertising — the source of virtually all of Alphabet’s $34 billion in annual profit — is nearly complete. That investigation, led by Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, is expected to result in a suit accusing Google of using tactics that have undermined competition in the market for online advertising, a person briefed on the inquiry said.

 

[Moonzy]

Sometimes I wonder why monopoly happens, then I sit down and think

 

What's better for consumers?

 

1-2 major companies using huge budget to improve their single service that everyone uses, since revenue isn't split too much.

 

Or

 

Total revenue split into 10 companies, each improving their products by 1/5 the rate of above companies due to less revenue stream to each.

 

After that, monopoly/duopoly kind of makes sense.

Innovation would stir things up, but most of the time they get absorbed by the big companies

 

PS: not saying monopoly is good, I'm just saying that I can see why it happens

[TimeOmnivore]

13 minutes ago, Spotty said:

While details are still being completed, the case on search is expected to focus on Google’s agreements with other companies like Apple, which set its search engine as the default option for users on iPhones and other devices. Those agreements give Google’s search engine an advantage over other rivals.

Considering that the default search engine deal with Google is basically the only reason Mozilla/Firefox is still in business, I kinda hope this lawsuit (or at least that aspect of it) doesn't go through. Of course, if Mozilla doesn't find an alternative source of income, it's only a matter of time until it shuts down, but I'd rather delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

 

It's a bit ironic that if Google becomes unable to create default search engine deals then that would still be a win for Google, given that that would push many people over to Chrome once Firefox goes out of business.

[Spotty]

5 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

What's better for consumers?

Until there is only one company left providing those services and they have so much money they can just buy out any potential threats or squash them with anti competitive practices such as selling at a loss to undercut the competitors prices. Then they're free to raise prices as high as they want and people who rely on those services have no choice but to pay it.

Pretty big concern for stuff like electricity and telecommunications where it's very expensive for competitors to build their own infrastructure, especially alongside existing competing services that are already established in the market and have possibly already covered the initial infrastructure costs. 

[Moonzy]

Just now, Spotty said:

there is only one company left

Yea I edited my post, I know why monopoly is bad

Just look at USA internet and mobile data prices, jesus

 

I'm just saying that I can see why it's hard for multiple companies to compete with each other, especially small ones to grow big

[Kilrah]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

Until there is only one company left providing those services and they have so much money they can just buy out any potential threats or squash them with anti competitive practices such as selling at a loss to undercut the competitors prices.

*cough*Amazon*cough*

 

Google seems to have always stayed pretty reasonable in comparison.

[porina]

I wonder if there are any parallels that could be drawn from the Internet Explorer thing MS went through. This might not be so much about the search engine directly, but the associated services that hang closely to it. If I want to do a web search, I don't want to use anyone but Google. I've tried Bing, just no. Is anyone else even relevant? (excluding the multi-searches like duckduckgo since they still rely on others to do the work). But if I search Weather, maybe it would be nice if I say I want to use one provider, as opposed to another for example.

[nonamesm3]

Startpage uses Google results. I've been using it lately when possible.

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, Random_Person1234 said:

 I think it will be very interesting to see this lawsuit play out due to what would happen to Google and Alphabet if the DOJ wins. Also the article says that other states may sue Alphabet over other concerns, which will also be interesting.

I don't see what can actually be done about it though. I mean, there are all kinds of options for legal recourse, but none of them, except shutting Google down, actually change anything.

Like seriously, except for possibly shutting Google down, what can they do to make Google no longer the dominant search engine? It's not like you can say "hey Google, stop being so popular please", or rather, it's not like Google could possibly comply to such a request.

[circeseye]

im sorry but, bing, yahoo even the few other search engines ive tried suck. i mean bing was..ok...but still wasnt very good. then theres the even smaller ones that seem to be for specific types of searches.

im curious what search engines are crying

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, Moonzy said:

Sometimes I wonder why monopoly happens, then I sit down and think

 

What's better for consumers?

 

1-2 major companies using huge budget to improve their single service that everyone uses, since revenue isn't split too much.

 

Or

 

Total revenue split into 10 companies, each improving their products by 1/5 the rate of above companies due to less revenue stream to each.

 

After that, monopoly/duopoly kind of makes sense.

Innovation would stir things up, but most of the time they get absorbed by the big companies

 

PS: not saying monopoly is good, I'm just saying that I can see why it happens

It's a fairly messed up situation. We either punish companies for being too successful, or threaten them enough to limit their success.

 

The alternative, isn't great. Perhaps we should simply prevent companies a certain size or larger, from buying smaller companies, or otherwise merging with other companies entirely.

[Moonzy]

9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's a fairly messed up situation. We either punish companies for being too successful, or threaten them enough to limit their success.

it's basically:

limiting progression for a more competitive market

vs

"fast" progression but the companies can name whatever price they want

 

I don't like either.

And I don't have an ideal case to present for such a situation, unfortunately

 

9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Perhaps we should simply prevent companies a certain size or larger, from buying smaller companies, or otherwise merging with other companies entirely.

what's to prevent bigger companies from stomping over smaller ones if they cant acquire them?

-stares at amazon-

sure there are laws, but loopholes and bribes are also a thing.

 

cant entirely blame human greed, because without it there won't be as much progression and innovation.

 

edit: "fast" in quote because once there's no competition, there's no need to improve -stares at intel-

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Moonzy said:

Yea I edited my post, I know why monopoly is bad

Just look at USA internet and mobile data prices, jesus

 

I'm just saying that I can see why it's hard for multiple companies to compete with each other, especially small ones to grow big

yeah that's easy because the big ones just buy the small ones... which should be the thing that should be really illegal if lawmakers really care about market regulations

[Morgan MLGman]

3 hours ago, lexusgamer05 said:

why is the US govt wasting their time like this? There are far more important issues at hand rather than a search engine that just happens to be really popular.

Probably because Google has far more power and reach than any of us even imagine. Just think about this - if Google decided to "adjust" search results so it fits whatever the company's current goal is, it could influence virtually most of the human population.

This is something that can be dangerous and needs to be looked at in some way in my view. As far as I know, nobody knows how companies like Google actually configure their search engines.

[miagisan]

38 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Probably because Google has far more power and reach than any of us even imagine. Just think about this - if Google decided to "adjust" search results so it fits whatever the company's current goal is, it could influence virtually most of the human population.

This is something that can be dangerous and needs to be looked at in some way in my view. As far as I know, nobody knows how companies like Google actually configure their search engines.

there are multiple search engines to use. You don't have to use google, Me, I tried the others, they pale in comparison. How is that google's fault that their's is better?

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, circeseye said:

im curious what search engines are crying

 

None. The DoJ hasn't said their doing this in response to a complaint. It's an internal decision at DoJ that google is too dominant from the looks of it, not an external complaint, thats prompting action.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Probably because Google has far more power and reach than any of us even imagine. Just think about this - if Google decided to "adjust" search results so it fits whatever the company's current goal is, it could influence virtually most of the human population.

This is something that can be dangerous and needs to be looked at in some way in my view. As far as I know, nobody knows how companies like Google actually configure their search engines.

 

I guarantee you the worlds intelligence services have figured this out and taken measure to keep an eye out, or even actively influence google.

 

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

I don't see what can actually be done about it though. I mean, there are all kinds of options for legal recourse, but none of them, except shutting Google down, actually change anything.

Like seriously, except for possibly shutting Google down, what can they do to make Google no longer the dominant search engine? It's not like you can say "hey Google, stop being so popular please", or rather, it's not like Google could possibly comply to such a request.

 

That is indeed going to e the hard part. One possibility from what I've seen said in the past is that they could force google to spin off the search engine a a seperate company from their other holdings.

 

Thats said the proposed investigation into digital advertising could easily have much more major implications. Google search is so good in large part because it's got so much funding behind it. If that gets dinged noticeably it could really affect things.

[CarlBar]

Just now, miagisan said:

there are multiple search engines to use. You don't have to use google, Me, I tried the others, they pale in comparison. How is that google's fault that their's is better?

 

It's not about fault with that issue, but more that it puts google in a position of enormous responsibility and many are going to want ironclad assurances google meets the responsibility.

[miagisan]

2 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

It's not about fault with that issue, but more that it puts google in a position of enormous responsibility and many are going to want ironclad assurances google meets the responsibility.

and how would you like the government to dictate how one should runs their business?

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, miagisan said:

there are multiple search engines to use. You don't have to use google, Me, I tried the others, they pale in comparison. How is that google's fault that their's is better?

I don't think you understood what I said. Let me give you an example - what if there were, say two competing candidates in an election. What if Google, as the largest search engine in the world decided that they preferred one of the candidates over the other, and adjusted their search engine so when people googled the names of the candidate it mostly showed negative coverage of one candidate, and a mostly positive one of the other?
How could you verify that they were actually doing that, and how would you prevent such behavior?

Please note that this is only speculation and a theoretical example. I'm not asserting that Google is actually doing that or has ever considered that.

1 minute ago, CarlBar said:

I guarantee you the worlds intelligence services have figured this out and taken measure to keep an eye out, or even actively influence google.

Any actual sources for that "guarantee"?

[miagisan]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

I don't think you understood what I said. Let me give you an example - what if there were, say two competing candidates in an election. What if Google, as the largest search engine in the world decided that they preferred one of the candidates over the other, and adjusted their search engine so when people googled the names of the candidate it mostly showed negative coverage of one candidate, and a mostly positive one of the other?
How could you verify that they were actually doing that, and how would you prevent such behavior?

Please note that this is only speculation and a theoretical example. I'm not asserting that Google is actually doing that or has ever considered that.

Any actual sources for that "guarantee"?

you could check by using more than one search engine?

 

Ex: I just bought my wife a new car, do you think i went to one dealership (google) without checking a few other dealerships first (bing, yahoo, etc)?

 

 

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, miagisan said:

you could check by using more than one search engine?

Maybe Bing, or Yahoo are popular and used in the US. I guarantee you that pretty much nobody uses those in Europe because they're terrible for searching stuff here. In my country, Google has pretty much exclusivity. And how many people actually search for simple stuff in three different search engines? That's unrealistic, and frankly quite naive thinking.

[Benjy98]

Your company is too successful, go to jail

[miagisan]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Maybe Bing, or Yahoo are popular and used in the US. I guarantee you that pretty much nobody uses those in Europe because they're terrible for searching stuff here. In my country, Google has pretty much exclusivity. And how many people actually search for simple stuff in three different search engines? That's unrealistic, and frankly quite naive thinking.

so because Bing and Yahoo suck, you want to punish the company that does it well. So you break up google, then you are forced to use Bing and Yahoo, how does that help you if their search engine sucks?