A historic opportunity is occurring right now in the tech sector. Google finds itself today in the remedies stage of the current lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and multiple states, claiming that Google is a monopolist in internet search. This legal battle comes amid increased scrutiny of major tech companies, including Meta and Apple, as regulators ramp up efforts to combat monopolistic practices in the digital economy.
In response, the DOJ has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google. Specifically, they allege the firm has illegally maintained its monopoly in the search engine market. If this case goes all the way, it could establish an incredibly important precedent. It could resemble the forced breakup of AT&T in 1982, which was the result of an antitrust lawsuit after years of the telecom behemoth monopolizing the industry. Experts observe that the historical context of such cases is crucial in understanding the current legal landscape surrounding tech companies.
The Justice Department has similarly gone after Apple for its tactics to protect its money-making iPhone monopoly from the competition. This is part of a new enforcement approach regulators are taking to combat high-tech monopolies for their anticompetitive behavior.
Fiona Scott Morton is an Alexander S. Onassis Visiting Scholar and economics professor at Yale University. She emphasized that non-breakup remedies could be effectively pro-competitive. Those remedies worked to increase competition and didn’t require a divestiture,” she said. She highlighted this as a promising approach for regulators looking to angle their shots at big companies.
Just as Google has become ensnared in America’s legal woes, so too has Meta. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argues that Meta has maintained an illegal monopoly on social media. As an example of this dominance, they cite strategic acquisitions made by Meta, including Instagram and WhatsApp. These two mighty tech companies are now facing such scrutiny in a courtroom. This should be of great concern to anyone who cares about competition in their markets’ future.
These sentiments echo Justice Neil Gorsuch’s important reminders earlier this year of the need for judicial restraint in antitrust cases. In striking contrast, he implores courts to consider the broader consequences of their rulings. Antitrust litigation is always intricate and especially steeped in the history of law and enforcement. Historical decisions have profoundly influenced competitive conditions in markets.
Touching off an extraordinary set of events, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Microsoft be broken into two separate companies. This ruling sought to break its monopoly Windows operating system off from its Office productivity suite. That decision laid the groundwork for the creation of the entire commercial software industry and enabling competitors to prosper. At one point, it looked like Google would be the biggest winner from Microsoft’s breakup. In the process, they took away an enormous amount of market share.
We’re heartened by the FTC’s recent lawsuit against Amazon. Their real target, as with Google and Meta, is Amazon, and they claim that the company has illegally shielded its monopoly in e-commerce from competition. These initiatives mark a clear return to form by regulators, who seem re-committed to addressing monopolistic behavior among the biggest members of the tech sector.
The historical precedent of antitrust actions shouldn’t be overstated. The breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, a company founded by John D. Rockefeller, marked a pivotal moment in the United States’ progressive trust-busting era. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s 1947 Supreme Court ruling emphasized that courts must focus on solutions that open markets to competition.
William Kovacic, a former chair of the FTC, had noted that “divestiture is an appropriate remedy.” He argued that its acceptability is a function of the magnitude of the harm. This view is echoed in the current debate over whether only structural remedies—like, for instance, breaking up companies—can restore competition.
Tim Wu, a prominent advocate for antitrust reform, remarked on the effectiveness of structural solutions: “If you want to stir the pot, structural solutions are clean and essentially self-executing – you break it up and walk away.” His comments are emblematic of a growing recognition among federal policymakers that stronger measures will be required to break the hold of deep-seated monopolies.
Here, Google has fought back legally over the past week. They denounced these challenges as a court ruling’s “wildly overboard proposal” that “goes miles beyond the court’s decision.” This defensive stance illustrates the contentious nature of these proceedings and highlights the challenges regulators face in enforcing antitrust laws against powerful corporations.
As these big name litigations play out, they remind us of titanic tradition antitrust clashes. Almost a quarter of a century ago, judges looked deeply into splitting up a big tech firm. This was during the time that Microsoft was being charged with monopolizing competition in the personal computing software markets.
Leave a Reply