Court rules in favor of Bates White client DOJ in United States et al. v. Google LLC
United States et al. v. Google LLC is a civil antitrust suit against Google alleging that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by foreclosing competition for internet search. The Department of Justice (DOJ) claims Google did this by denying general search engine competitors access to vital distribution channels and scale, thereby thwarting innovation and harming consumers and advertisers.
The DOJ retained Michael Whinston as an expert witness. At trial, Prof. Whinston testified on three separate occasions, including as the final witness. 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 DOJ also retained Antonio Rangel, Caltech Bing Professor of Neuroscience, Behavioral Biology, & Economics, as an expert witness. Prof. Rangel was supported by Bates White and testified as the second witness. Prof. Rangel 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.
Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that general search services and general search text advertising were relevant antitrust markets in which Google had illegally protected monopolies. Regarding anticompetitive effects, the Court found that Google’s exclusive distribution contracts covered half of all search queries in the United States, deprived rivals of scale needed to effectively compete in search, and reduced rivals’ incentive to invest and innovate. The Court’s decision cites Prof. Whinston’s testimony dozens of times. The Court’s decision also cites Prof. Rangel’s testimony dozens of times, including crediting him with convincingly explaining that the combination of user habit, Google’s brand, and choice friction creates a powerful default effect that drives most consumers to use the default search access points occupied by Google.
The case has been described as the most important federal antitrust lawsuit in more than 20 years and garnered significant media attention, including GCR, the New York Times, and CNN.
The next step in the case is the determination of remedies.