In a bellwether decision in the case United States et al. v. Google LLC, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by suppressing competitors in internet search to protect its monopoly.
In 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against Google, alleging that the company competed unfairly by paying other companies to automatically have Google handle searches on smartphones and web browsers. The New York Times called the case the “biggest challenge so far to the vast power of today’s tech giants.” This was one of the first of a series of antitrust cases against major tech platforms to go to trial.
The DOJ retained Michael Whinston, Bates White Partner and MIT Professor of Economics and Sloan Fellows Professor of Management, as an expert witness. Prof. Whinston testified three times over multiple days and was the final witness in the 10-week trial. At trial, he explained that general search services and general search text advertising were relevant antitrust markets, that Google possessed substantial market power protected by barriers to entry in those markets, and that Google’s conduct using exclusive contracts had anticompetitive effects on competition in those markets. The court decision cites Prof. Whinston’s work dozens of times, demonstrating the overall impact and contributions of his testimony.
Bates White also supported Antonio Rangel, Bing Professor of Neuroscience, Behavioral Biology, & Economics at CalTech. Prof. Rangel testified as the second witness for the DOJ. He explained the role that default effects play in consumer choice in search engine usage and that default effects are stronger on mobile devices than on personal computers. The court decision also cites Prof. Rangel dozens of times and calls his explanations “convincing.”
The case has been described as the most important federal antitrust lawsuit in more than 20 years and has garnered extensive media attention, including GCR, the New York Times, and CNN. Experts believe that this ruling will likely influence other courts in Big Tech antitrust cases.
