A recent court document reveals significant findings against Google, emphasizing its monopoly power in the general search services and general search text ads markets. The court concluded that Google used exclusive distribution agreements with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers to suppress competition. This anticompetitive conduct enabled Google to charge inflated prices for search ads, leading to substantial monopoly profits.
Despite these findings, the court did not determine that Google holds monopoly power in the broader search advertising market or impose sanctions for its failure to preserve chat messages.
Monopoly Power in the General Search Services Market:
The court ruled that Google does possess monopoly power within the market for general search services. The Judge states:
Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition. … [T]he material consideration in determining whether a monopoly exists is not that prices are raised and that competition is actually excluded but that power exists to raise prices or exclude competition when it is desired to do so
The document further elaborates on how monopoly power can be inferred through indirect evidence, such as a dominant market share protected by entry barriers, and explains that Google has established such a position in the general search services market.
Under this indirect, structural approach, ‘monopoly power may be inferred from a firm’s possession of a dominant share of a relevant market that is protected by entry barriers.
The judge concludes that Google possesses monopoly power in the general search services market:
For these reasons, the court concludes that Google has monopoly power in the general search services market.
Anticompetitive Practices Through Exclusive Agreements
Exclusive Distribution Agreements: The court ruled that Google’s exclusive distribution agreements significantly contributed to maintaining its monopoly power in the general search services market. These agreements were deemed exclusionary because they ensured Google remained the preloaded default on a large share of devices, effectively foreclosing competition. The court stated:
Google’s distribution agreements are exclusionary contracts that violate Section 2 because they ensure that half of all GSE users in the United States will receive Google as the preloaded default on all Apple and Android devices, as well as cause additional anticompetitive harm
The agreements have three primary anticompetitive effects: “(1) market foreclosure, (2) preventing rivals from achieving scale, and (3) diminishing the incentives of rivals to invest and innovate in general search.
Market Foreclosure: The court emphasized that the exclusive agreements foreclosed a substantial share of the market, which is a key factor in determining whether such agreements violate antitrust laws. The court cited the standard:
“An exclusive agreement violates the Sherman Act only when its ‘probable effect is to foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected.’”
Causation and Anticompetitive Harm: The court discussed the concept of causation in antitrust law, particularly in cases involving exclusionary conduct. It noted:
“Courts may ‘infer causation from the fact that a defendant has engaged in anticompetitive conduct that reasonably appears capable of making a significant contribution to maintaining monopoly power.'”
Intent and Evidence: The court made it clear that intent behind the conduct is not a necessary element for a Section 2 violation, focusing instead on the effect of the conduct. Despite Google’s efforts to avoid creating a “paper trail,” the court ruled based on the anticompetitive effects:
Given that the court already has concluded that Google’s exclusive dealing agreements have anticompetitive effects… it is unnecessary to consider intent evidence to further ‘understand’ that conduct.
The court expressed concern about Google’s efforts to avoid creating evidence, stating,
Google clearly took to heart the lessons from [Microsoft and other cases]. It trained its employees, rather effectively, not to create ‘bad’ evidence.
These rulings underscore that Google’s practices were found to have significant anticompetitive effects, which contributed to maintaining its monopoly in key markets
Court Clears Google’s Search Ads 360 of Antitrust Violations
The court examined Google’s practices related to its advertising platform, Search Ads 360 (SA360), which manages search campaigns across multiple search engines, including Google and its competitors. While the platform was scrutinized for potentially contributing to Google’s anticompetitive behavior, the court ultimately did not find sufficient evidence to hold Google liable for violations of antitrust laws specifically related to SA360.
Allegations of Favoritism Toward Google Ads: The plaintiffs’ claim that Google used SA360 to give its own search engine an unfair advantage over competitors like Bing or Yahoo. The plaintiffs argued that this was part of Google’s broader strategy to maintain its dominance in the search advertising market by steering more ad spending towards Google Search through SA360, potentially harming competition.
Plaintiffs allege that Google has designed SA360 in a way that favors its own search engine over those of its competitors, thereby reinforcing its monopoly power in the search advertising market
Court’s Finding on Anticompetitive Intent:
The court finds that while there is some evidence to suggest that Google may have had an incentive to design SA360 to favor its own products, the evidence is not sufficiently compelling to conclude that this conduct constitutes a violation of antitrust law
The court acknowledged that there might be a business incentive for Google to design SA360 in a way that benefits its own search engine. However, the court did not find the evidence compelling enough to prove that this behavior crossed the line into illegal anticompetitive conduct.
Lack of evidence:
There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Google’s management of SA360 was intended to exclude competitors or that it had a significant anticompetitive effect on the market.
The court’s conclusion here is clear: despite the allegations, the evidence presented did not convincingly show that Google’s use of SA360 was designed to harm competitors or had a meaningful impact on competition. This ruling emphasizes the court’s need for concrete evidence of both intent and market effect when considering antitrust violations.
Legal Outcome of the Sherman Act Violation
Google was found to have violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in conduct that maintained its monopoly in the market for general search services. The court ruled:
Google’s distribution agreements are exclusionary contracts that violate Section 2 because they ensure that half of all GSE users in the United States will receive Google as the preloaded default… These agreements had substantial anticompetitive effects.
This reflects the court’s rejection of Google’s defense arguments, affirming that the company’s practices were unjustifiable under antitrust law. The court concluded:
Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements… The court finds these practices to be in violation of the Sherman Act.
The court also emphasized that the exclusionary conduct foreclosed competition in a substantial share of the relevant market, a key factor in finding a violation of the Sherman Act:
The court concludes that the exclusionary conduct foreclosed competition in a substantial share of the relevant market, which is a key factor in finding a violation of the Sherman Act.
Google’s Monopoly Pricing Impact
The court found that Google exercised its monopoly power by controlling and raising prices for general search text ads above competitive levels, which allowed the company to secure substantial profits. This behavior was identified as a key indicator of monopoly power under antitrust laws. The court emphasized that Google’s ability to set supracompetitive prices was directly linked to its dominance in the general search services market and its exclusionary practices, which reduced competition and left advertisers with few alternatives.
Monopoly Pricing: The court recognized Google’s control over the pricing of search ads as a result of its monopoly power. The term “supracompetitive prices” refers to prices that are higher than what would be expected in a competitive market. The court identified this as a direct outcome of Google’s exclusionary practices, which limited competition and gave Google the power to set higher prices without the risk of losing advertisers to competitors.
Impact on the Market: By maintaining a monopoly, Google could impose higher costs on advertisers, which not only increased its profits but also had a cascading effect on the market, likely leading to higher prices for consumers. The court highlights this as a negative consequence of reduced competition, reinforcing the anticompetitive nature of Google’s pricing strategies.
The imposition of these higher prices is a direct consequence of Google’s ability to maintain its monopoly position in the market, which has led to significant financial gains for the company at the expense of advertisers and, ultimately, consumers
Lack of Competitive Constraints: Without rivals that could offer better prices or ad products, Google had no incentive to reduce its prices or innovate, which is a hallmark of monopolistic behavior. This lack of competitive constraints allowed Google to continue earning monopoly profits without fear of losing market share.
Google’s dominance in the search advertising market meant that it faced little to no competitive pressure to lower prices or improve the quality of its ad products, further entrenching its market power
Economic Harm: By distorting market dynamics, Google not only harmed competitors by preventing them from gaining market share but also harmed consumers indirectly, as higher advertising costs can lead to higher prices for goods and services advertised on the platform. The court sees this as a significant negative outcome of Google’s monopolistic pricing practices.
The court finds that Google’s pricing practices, driven by its monopoly power, have caused substantial economic harm by distorting the market dynamics in favor of Google and against competitors and consumers
Google’s Monopoly in the Search Ads Market
Google has monopoly power in the markets for general search services and general search text advertising. However, the court found that Google does not possess monopoly power in the broader search ads market, despite having a large market share. The court recognized that Google’s ability to increase prices for text ads indicated some degree of pricing power but noted that this power did not extend uniformly across all types of search ads, such as Product Listing Ads (PLAs), which remained relatively stable in price due to competition from other retailers like Amazon .
Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits
Regarding Google’s auction pricing mechanisms, the document states,
Google has manipulated pricing mechanisms, referred to as ‘pricing knobs,’ to increase the cost of text ads over time, further suppressing competition.
Legal Outcome and Broader Implications
Despite these findings, the court did not determine that Google holds monopoly power in the broader search advertising market. Additionally, the court chose not to impose sanctions on Google for its failure to preserve certain chat messages that could have been relevant to the case. This aspect of the ruling indicates that while the court was critical of some of Google’s practices, it did not find grounds for broader or more punitive measures in these areas.
Google’s dominance in the search advertising market meant that it faced little to no competitive pressure to lower prices or improve the quality of its ad products, further entrenching its market power.
To view the full document, click here
Here are some metrics that contributed to the decision making:
Google Search & Financial Metrics
- Market Share:
- In 2009, Google had 80% of all search queries in the U.S.; by 2020, it increased to 89.2%.By 2020, this had increased to nearly 90%, and even higher on mobile devices at almost 95% and 84% on desktop devices
- Bing, the second-place search engine, received roughly 6% of all search queries.
- Revenue:
- In 2021, advertisers spent more than $150 billion on general search engines. Google generated over $146 billion in advertising revenue, up from $47 billion in 2014.
- Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., has a market capitalization of over $2 trillion, driven largely by Google’s advertising business.
- Revenue Share Payments:
- Google pays substantial sums for default placements. In 2021, Google spent over $26 billion on revenue share payments for default placement deals.
- Google entered into revenue-sharing agreements with partners like Apple and Android OEMs, which were critical in securing default search engine status on their devices. This helped maintain Google’s market dominance and significantly contributed to its advertising revenue.
- Search and Advertising Costs:
- Google spent $8.4 billion in 2020 on operating its search engine and $11.1 billion on operating its search ads business.
- The estimated cost to maintain a general search engine for Apple would be around $6 billion annually.
- Monopoly Power:
- Google holds monopoly power in the general search services and general search text ads markets.
- The court found that Google’s distribution agreements (e.g., with Apple and Android OEMs) have anticompetitive effects by foreclosing rivals from key distribution channels.
Competitors:
- Bing (Microsoft):
- Bing’s market share has remained below 12%.
- Microsoft has invested nearly $100 billion into search over the past two decades.
- Bing’s search and news advertising revenue was $11.6 billion in 2022.
- Apple:
- Apple’s proprietary browser, Safari, is a major search access point with Google as the default engine.
- Apple’s cost estimate to build a competitive search engine is around $10 billion initially and $4 billion annually.
- Other Rivals:
- Yahoo and DuckDuckGo (DDG) syndicate their search results from Bing.
- DDG differentiates itself by focusing on privacy, though it does not produce its own search results or ads.
Other Key Points:
- Monetization: Google’s advertising business is highly lucrative due to the significant scale of its search engine, allowing it to charge supracompetitive prices for general search text ads.
- Distribution Strategy: Google secures default search placements through contracts with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and carriers, enhancing its dominance.
- Investments and Barriers to Entry: High costs and technical barriers discourage new competitors, as building a GSE requires billions of dollars in investment and significant technical resources.
Revenue Enhancement Strategies:
The judgment outlines several strategies Google employed to enhance its revenue, particularly in the search advertising market:
- Default Distribution Agreements:
- Google entered into exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, mobile carriers, and browser developers to ensure that Google was the default search engine on key search access points (e.g., Apple’s Safari browser, Android devices). This strategy maximized the number of searches conducted on Google, which in turn increased the volume of ads served and the revenue generated from those ads.
- Revenue Sharing Agreements:
- Google negotiated revenue-sharing deals with partners like Apple and other device manufacturers, where it paid them a percentage of the advertising revenue generated from searches conducted through these default search points. These agreements incentivized partners to keep Google as the default, further driving Google’s revenue.
- Investment in Search Quality and User Data:
- Google invested heavily in maintaining and improving its search engine quality, including developing advanced algorithms and indexing vast amounts of web content. The collection and analysis of user data were crucial for delivering more relevant ads, which in turn increased the click-through rates and revenue from ads.
- Monetizing Commercial Queries:
- Google focused on monetizing commercial queries, which constituted about 20% of all searches. These queries were likely to lead to transactions, making them highly valuable for advertisers. Google served ads on these queries, charging advertisers for clicks (pay-per-click model), which significantly contributed to its advertising revenue.
- Increasing Text Ads Prices:
- The judgment notes that Google employed various strategies to increase the prices of text ads, including adjustments to its ad auction algorithms and limiting advertiser control over certain ad placements. These tactics allowed Google to charge higher prices for ad placements, thereby boosting its ad revenue.
- Expanding Search+ Services:
- Google expanded its suite of services beyond just search, including Gmail, Google Maps, Google Play, and YouTube. These services provided additional platforms for displaying ads, thereby increasing the total ad inventory and revenue potential.
- Enhancing Search Ads 360 (SA360):
- Google developed and maintained SA360, a search engine marketing tool that allowed advertisers to purchase digital ads across multiple platforms, including Google’s. By integrating this tool with its own services, Google captured more ad spend from advertisers looking for comprehensive ad campaign management, further increasing its revenue.
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning:
- Google invested in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of ads. These technologies helped in better targeting and personalizing ads, which improved ad performance and ultimately led to higher revenues from advertisers who saw better returns on their investment.
Here are some articles that discuss the court’s ruling:
- Google Monopolized Search Through Illegal Deals, Judge Rules
- Friendly Google and Enemy Remedies
- United States v. Google
- Hot takes on the other Google antitrust trial
- A Critical Analysis of the Google Search Antitrust Decision
Related Links:
Stop the wasted ad spend. Get more conversions from the same ad budget.
Our customers save over $16 Million per year on Google and Amazon Ads.