Google is one of the most well-known websites in the history of the internet. For many users, “Googling” is synonymous with internet search. Some people take issue precisely with this exceptional status, however, alleging that the company retains its dominance by illegitimate means.
Although litigation concerning big corporations is nothing new or rare, a couple of antitrust cases that Google currently faces stand among the most significant ones since antitrust laws were introduced. These two cases, concerning general internet search and digital ad services, reveal something fundamental about the world we live in today. Namely, the importance of web data in today’s markets is even bigger than we might have thought.
How Will Google’s Antitrust Cases Impact Web Data?
Google currently faces antitrust cases in the US regarding alleged monopolies on search engine technology and adtech. One possible remedy the courts could impose would require the company to syndicate the data it collects, which would have major implications in a range of areas.
An Overview of Google’s Antitrust Cases
U.S. antitrust laws are a collection of acts made to protect the process of fair competition that benefits the consumer. As such, they ban any company from monopolizing the market or using unreasonably anticompetitive business practices. The suits led by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) allege Google has done just this in search engine and adtech industries.
Search Engine Monopoly
In the first complaint, the DOJ claimed that Google had used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in general search, search advertising and general search text advertising services. The relevant tactics include, for example, striking multibillion-dollar deals with other tech giants, such as Apple, to make Google the default search engine on its products.
In a landmark decision, the court upheld the complaint, ruling that Google is an illegal monopoly in the aforementioned areas. Now, both the plaintiffs and Google, can discuss the potential remedies for the situation, including forcing Google to sell Chrome, the world’s most popular web browser. After the final decision by the court, Google will still have the chance to appeal, which might stretch the procedures into 2027 or even later.
Adtech Antitrust Lawsuit
In the second antitrust case, the DOJ blames Google for intentionally creating anticompetitive conditions in digital advertising. According to the complaint, Google has neutralized all competition in ad tech by either acquiring competing solutions or using its market dominance to disrupt the ability of advertisers to use competing products effectively.
In closing arguments, the lawyer for the DOJ claimed that Google linked its main products in such a way that it is hard, if not impossible, for advertisers to use competing technologies. Meanwhile, Google’s lawyers argue, similarly to the other antitrust case, that Google's success comes from its innovation and superior products. Unlike in the search engine case, the plaintiffs have pre-emptively asked to break up Google’s ad tech business if it’s judged to be a monopoly.
Is Google in Trouble?
The two cases in the US are not the only antitrust-related trouble for Google. Regulators in the UK and EU have also been interested in the competitive conditions in cyberspace lately. In the latter jurisdiction, Google has actually recently won a legal battle to overturn an antitrust fine of €1.49 billion imposed by the European Commission targeting the company’s online advertising business.
This victory for Google, however, doesn’t tell us much about what to expect from the U.S. court’s decision since, although both cases relate to Google’s digital advertising practices, their scope and subject matter are quite different. Instead, these cases suggest that regulators around the world are intensifying their scrutiny of big tech’s perceived monopolistic practices. They’re imposing huge fines, demanding an end to activities deemed anticompetitive, and even suggesting that the only remedy might be to break up companies like Google.
In Google’s case, the most discussed potential outcome of the cases is the possibility of forcing the company to sell Chrome. But another potential remedy — making Google syndicate the data it has accumulated — is both more likely and more impactful.
Antitrust Is All About the Data
The history of major antitrust cases in the US supports the common refrain that data is the new oil. One of the first such cases concerned Standard Oil’s grip on the oil market in the early 20th century. The biggest current case under antitrust law is, in many ways, about access to data, without which competing in the digital markets is nearly impossible. Specifically, web data, whether publicly available or collected by big companies internally, has become the most valuable resource.
The remedies framework proposed by the DOJ after the decision in the search engine case states that “Virtually every component and process of a general search engine benefits from data.” The argument goes that Google’s dominance allows it to accumulate much more data on search queries than its rivals, putting it in a position to perpetuate this dominance. Thus, to restore competitive conditions in the market, Google should be made to share its data for a price with the competitors.
The digital advertising case’s complaint also repeatedly mentions exclusive access to data as one of the main factors making competition against Google impracticable. Thus, if Google were to lose this trial, the breaking up of its digital advertising business, already requested in the suit, would actually serve to unbundle the data streams, dividing them among different owners.
Google’s argument is supported by legitimate privacy concerns raised by the prospect of sharing data with more organizations. Yet, regulators might see the exclusive access to web data as an even bigger problem, threatening the very functioning of free markets.
The alleged privileged access to data is especially critical in the unfolding age of artificial intelligence (AI). Web data fuels the development and functioning of AI. If one company has all the data while others struggle to get it, that company is in a much better position to create and control AI products of the future. Thus, having a monopoly or near monopoly on web data today could effectively mean monopolizing large parts of tomorrow’s tech.
This seems to be one of the major concerns of the DOJ and other regulatory agencies. Whether and how this concern should be addressed in the discussed cases is for the courts to decide. One thing is certain, however. Although the prospect of Google having to sell Chrome or Android might be the one making headlines, the most important question the courts are investigating is that of access to web data.
Protect Public Data Access
As the Google antitrust trials exemplify, access to web data has become the backbone of effective competition. Such data can be external and publicly available to anyone capable of gathering it, or it can be internally collected by companies like Google by owning and administering various tools and platforms. In both cases, privacy concerns need to be balanced with fair access to resources for businesses of various sizes to effectively compete and innovate. Thus, one of the main aims of digital regulation should be to protect free, fair, and secure access to web data. This might help prevent another series of lengthy antitrust litigation.
