Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court of Columbia, in a 277-page ruling, held that Google had abused a monopoly over research business. The Justice department and States had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, like Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers. Judge Amit P. Mehta said in his ruling that Google is a monopolist and it has acted like one to maintain its monopoly. 

The verdict is considered harsh on the rising giant technology company that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way people shop, consume, behave, etc. The decision is likely to influence other lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, Meta, Facebook, Instagram and  WhatsApp.The decision is a major blow to Google, which has built its search engine and has become a major source of online search. So much so that even its name has become a ‘verb’. 

The Court held that, “Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States—general search services and general text advertising—through its exclusive distribution agreements.” 

The Court declined to impose sanctions on Google and it observed that, “On the request for sanctions, the Court declines to impose them. Not because Google’s failure to preserve chat messages might not warrant them. But because the sanctions Plaintiffs request do not move the needle on the court’s assessment of Google’s liability.” 

It further held that “An adverse evidentiary inference would not change the court’s finding that Google lacks monopoly power in the market for search ads or that there is no relevant market for general search ads. Nor would it change the Court’s legal conclusion that Google had no duty to deal with Microsoft on its preferred terms as to SA360, nor its finding on the absence of anti competitive effects, as Google is not likely to have possessed such evidence". 

The Court, while referring to its decision not to 'sanction' Google, observed, “The Court’s decision not to sanction Google should not be understood as condoning Google’s failure to preserve chat evidence. Any company that puts the onus on its employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril. Google avoided sanctions in this case. It may not be so lucky next time.” 

Judge Mehta praised Google for its "Engineering Skill & Investment in Search", but observed that it has a major unseen advantage over its rivals. The 'Google' ruling is significant since it applies to big tech platforms. The ruling directly addresses the notion among 'tech giants' that while you can be dominant, at the same time you can't abuse the dominance. Though Google countered the thrust of arguments against it by contending that its search engine was the leader because it's a superior product, the Court held that Google had broken the law through its exclusive deals with Apple & other device makers as well as browser companies to make Google's search engine the 'automatic' selection.

Reference: United States of America et al v. Google LLC, Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM)