Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search (bloomberg.com) 94
Google's payments to make its search engine the default on smartphone web browsers violates US antitrust law, a federal judge ruled Monday, handing a key victory to the Justice Department. From a report: Judge Amit Mehta in Washington said that the Alphabet unit's $26 billion in payments effectively blocked any other competitor from succeeding in the market. Antitrust enforcers alleged that Google has illegally maintained a monopoly over online search and related advertising. The government said that Google has paid Apple, Samsung and others billions over decades for prime placement on smartphones and web browsers. This default position has allowed Google to build up the most-used search engine in the world, and fueled more than $300 billion in annual revenue largely generated by search ads.
I would not be surprised... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Likely.
Doesn't Coke pay billions to Walmart for better placement? Everyone does that. The only issue I see here is that it is exclusive for Apple.
Maybe Apple can provide same pricing to 3-5 top search engines and then put each of them randomly based on the bid. So if google buys 500 million devices and pays 10 billion, and Bing buys 200 million devices, then it will be required to pay 4 billion and 2 out of 7 devices will have Bing as a default search engine and 5 of the 7 have Google.
A search engine may di
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
You have little contact with the average Jo/Joe (Score:2)
Most people don't have a clue. It's scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah (Score:2)
Your optimism is showing... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"and the default browser"
It's all the same Apple bullshit under the hood, so no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would not be surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine that most people would pick Google by default or switch to Google if Apple had an arrangement with some other company.
This is obviously untrue because if it were true, that necessarily implies that Google is the stupidest company in the entire world, paying tens of billions of dollars that were completely unnecessary.
The truth is that most people won't change the default, either through apathy, ignorance, or incompetence. Hence, the need for tens of billions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple and Google want to come to some business arrangement to make Google the default search engine on Apple devices that's their own business.
Except it's not just Apple, you clown. It's EVERYBODY. They are fucking paying EVERYBODY to be the default search engine.
"Google pays billions of dollars each year to distributors—including popular-device manufacturers such as Apple, LG, Motorola, and Samsung; major U.S. wireless carriers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon; and browser developers such as Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb—to secure default status for its general search engine
Everyone is free to change it after the fact. I don't know why Google pays Apple as much as they do, but they probably have the data to justify it. I would imagine that most people would pick Google by default or switch to Google if Apple had an arrangement with some other company.
Clearly Google doesn't think so, and is willing to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Doesn't Coke pay billions to Walmart for better placement?
Are you OK with Coke paying Walmart to only put Pepsi back behind Sporting Goods?
Re:I would not be surprised... (Score:4, Insightful)
Likely.
Doesn't Coke pay billions to Walmart for better placement? Everyone does that. The only issue I see here is that it is exclusive for Apple.
Totally different situations. It would be similar if Coke paid Walmart to carry Coke and no other sodas. The no other sodas part is what is anti-competitive and illegal. Walmart world never accept that deal unless it were big enough to more than make up for losing profits on alternative sodas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Default IS blocking for most users. This is the same only if you put Pepsi in the basement hidden behind maze and maybe with a sign saying "admin only" on the basement door. People are not going to try to figure it out and some won't even know it's even an option plus if you need "permission" for access that also deters people. The only possible way out is to NOT have a default and require the user decide with an informative form 1st time; followed by directions where to find that form back again should y
Excellent parallel, thank you. (Score:2)
n/t
Re: I would not be surprised... (Score:3)
Edge is the default browser on Windows however Chrome has the vast majority of the market share. How did that happen if being defeat is the same as blocking using every other option?
Re: (Score:2)
>How did that happen
perhaps because nearly every time you do a search, it pops up a "google recommends chrome" message, with a download link ? (at least if you have sense enough to do your searches in private windows where it doesn't have a cookie about how many searches since the last nag).
Re: (Score:1)
Users do not make much effort to know what they are doing and they install plenty of BS they shouldn't because of online ads and scams.
Chrome is as easy to install as a virus is. Plus it is hyped everywhere... on the most popular websites: google and youtube. Windows doesn't put up dire warnings discouraging installing or even looking for Chrome (and if they, did prior experience would have users realize it's BS and ignore the warnings on legitimate threats... oh wait, a ton of users already ignore legit w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the issue here whether or not they're paid to make that decision?
Yes. There can only be one default and they are paying to be that default. That's anticompetitive. On the other hand, your soda example brings up a good point, there is clear anticompetitive behavior there too and it is going unpunished [latimes.com]. And I've also heard that it's difficult to even get both types of fountains in your store, as the vendors want exclusivity to maximize sales at locations they have to visit, but I don't have any specifics on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely.
Doesn't Coke pay billions to Walmart for better placement? Everyone does that. The only issue I see here is that it is exclusive for Apple.
Totally different situations. It would be similar if Coke paid Walmart to carry Coke and no other sodas. The no other sodas part is what is anti-competitive and illegal. Walmart world never accept that deal unless it were big enough to more than make up for losing profits on alternative sodas.
Totally different situations.
Walmart can carry an arbitrary number of sodas.
A browser/phone can only have a single default.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a monopoly. You can pay people to promote your product.
The trouble is when you have a monopoly, and you use the profits from your monopoly to maintain your monopoly.
It would be like if Pepsi didn't exist and Coke paid every major grocery store to only carry Pepsi products. Then it becomes a chicken/egg situation, nobody else can outbid Coke to get on store shelves because they have no money, and they have no money because they can't get onto store shelves.
The fact that Pepsi exists and Coke
Re: (Score:1)
Coca-Cola is not a monopolist — even if you include all of the company's soft drinks (not just Coke), the market share was 42% in 2017 [market.us] and falling.
The share of Google's search-engine, meanwhile, exceeds 91% [statcounter.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't Coke pay billions to Walmart for better placement? Everyone does that.
The difference is that Coke doesn't have a super-majority of the market share. Hell, it doesn't even have a majority. As of 2023, Coca-Cola's Coke brand had the largest market share of soda in the United States, with 19.2% of the market by volume
As of July 2023, Google had 81.95% of the global desktop search market share, while Bing had 10.51% and Yahoo had 2.67%.
That's the fuckin' difference...
The only issue I see here is that it is exclusive for Apple.
What the fuck are you going on about? Google pays a hell of a lot more companies than just Apple.. Th
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
if they appealed and SCOTUS overturned that ruling.
Easier solution. Bribe the President to get the DOJ to drop the case -- apparently, SCOTUS has already declared that would be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The very concept of 'legality' of Presidential actions seems to have gone out the window.
SCOTUS pulled a Putin -- or is it "pushed". :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To my ignorant, uneducated mind, it would seem to me that when SCOTUS states things like that as law, it is setting up the President to be a dictator.
I heard only on Day 1. :-)
Good thing dictators like giving up and/or not using their power. (*sigh*)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, it's not a bribe, it is a gratuity, wholly different thing, according to the SCOTUS.
Or in the case of Clarence Thomas, is not even a gratuity because it would be entirely concealed and not reported.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, it's not a bribe, it is a gratuity, wholly different thing, according to the SCOTUS.
True for the case of Snyder v. United States, but in Trump v. United States the Court held that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority *and* that any related illegal conduct cannot be used or even considered. From Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for core acts only [npr.org]:
Even the most private and non-official act—like bribery, she said—is insulated because the president is commander in chief, and under the court’s rules laid down Monday, even if bribery charges are brought against a former president, prosecutors could not present evidence of a quid pro quo, she said. The money may have been the quid, but the quo was an official act which presumptively is insulated from prosecution.
Though, to be fair, that last part was a bit too far for Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke from her fellow conservatives on this important point, siding with the dissenters. “The Constitution,” she said, “does not require blinding juries to the circumstances” of a presidents official, and allegedly illegal, action.
So accepting a bribe to direct the DOJ is okay by SCOTUS as, of
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Right, which is why Biden's DOJ put Tulsi Gabbard on the Quite Skies terror watchlist less than 2 days after she criticized the Biden regime. Because they don't interfere with the DOJ. Nosireebob.
Re: (Score:2)
But did they?
I haven't seen any reputable news source claiming this yet. I think I'll wait and see what the news is tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
What until Asshole becomes president again, although now he's in one of his usual self-destructive modes. He's always been for sale, and he doesn't care who buys him, ask Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
What until Asshole becomes president again, although now he's in one of his usual self-destructive modes. He's always been for sale, and he doesn't care who buys him, ask Putin.
Or Egypt -- Federal investigators suspected that Egypt may have bribed Trump with $10 million in cash [salon.com] (an investigation dropped under Bill Barr).
I guess it depends on who pays more (Score:1)
Remember seeing an interview with a multimillionaire complaining that they couldn't compete with the billionaires for bribery so they can no longer get the time of day from a senator let alone a supreme Court justice.
Google has the money but usually those kind of bribes have to come from an individual link to the company rather than a company itself
Re: I guess it depends on who pays more (Score:2)
Yeah those real estate guys always like giving out refrigerator magnets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I would not be surprised... (Score:2)
If we're assuming based on ideological lines, I have doubts about that as the administration that tipped the current majority was feuding with Google at the time the DOJ started all of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a bipartisan case. It was started by Trump's DOJ and pursued by Biden's afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main complaint about current SCOTUS is that it's "too right wing".
In this case, it's the right wing that initiated the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they appealed and SCOTUS overturned that ruling.
I would feel more comfortable with that statement if you had checked Clarence Thomas' bank account first.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? (Score:1)
I know not everyone is technically savvy. But I am, and know full well how to change the default search engine on all my devices. I generally just leave it as Google because that gives me the best results in most cases. I do use Perplexity.ai at home as default, but go back and forth with Google regularly depending on the sorts of results I want.
I suppose one could argue that because Google has so much more traffic, they can spend more on R&D to maintain the best search engine. But I see no evidence
Re: (Score:1)
This whole scenario just seems to me that Google was paying for a service... of being the default selected search engine in some places. The companies got paid for providing that service. There are other search engines and there is no barrier to using them over Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you even talking about? My comment exactly said "There are other search engines and there is no barrier to using them over Google". Meaning you can use Yahoo, or Duckduckgo, or Bing or whatever tf search engine you want to use. There is already choice and this conversation has nothing to do with starting yet another search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
For the general population to disire to possibly change their default search engine, they would first have to understand what a search engine even IS and how it differs from a browser address bar.
Re: (Score:2)
For the general population to disire to possibly change their default search engine, they would first have to understand what a search engine even IS and how it differs from a browser address bar.
Easily fixed. Do what the EU forced back in the day on MS. When you first try to use your "default" search engine, popup a selection panel that randomly places the top N search providers along with a random sample of other search providers, as well as a way to search for or enter your own provider. Make them pick a default, rather than providing one by default. Until they pick one, use them at random (IE: maybe allow them to continue without setting a permanent default). Have links to further reading. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft should have the right to include a web browser in their OS.
What they should not have the right to do is advertise to me with OS-level popups when I dare to use a competing browser.
They have done this several times with Windows 10. I am not sure if they are still doing it or not. But THAT is abuse of their position, not simply including a browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft should have the right to include a web browser in their OS. ... But THAT (os-level popups) is abuse of their position, not simply including a browser.
FYI, nowhere did I saw that it was abuse of their market position to simply include a browser. I said, "... so long as Microsoft makes its browser and search engine default by default ...".
The popups are also a thing. Resetting a default back to their own browser is also something that has happened on numerous occasions as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the browser that comes with the OS not be the default browser?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the browser that comes with the OS not be the default browser?
Please! You've been around long enough to know that answer!
See any linux distribution for a real world example of how to do that.
See the various antitrust cases (US and EU) for why the browser shipping with the OS should not be default.
See the MS solution in the EU for their compliant implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the browser that comes with the OS not be the default browser?
Please! You've been around long enough to know that answer!
See any linux distribution for a real world example of how to do that.
You mean like with Debian, where it only comes with Firefox out of the box, and you have to add more browsers if you want them?
See the MS solution in the EU for their compliant implementation.
Microsoft was abusing a market position with bundling schemes (and prohibiting vendors from including other operating systems and/or including other browsers) so it also arguably made sense to force that on them. But it's not as a general principle, it's specifically as a remedy for their other behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like with Debian, where it only comes with Firefox out of the box, and you have to add more browsers if you want them?
Your install may have. My Debian install did not include Firefox.
What's the point you're trying to make?
Re: (Score:2)
I find that some of the competitors do search just fine, and they might not collect everything there is to know about you as part of their process. I use Brave for example.
But that's not the point here. Many users will not be tech savvy or will just stick with the default search engine because it works okay. Google handed out that $26 billion in payments for a reason, and it could very well have "effectively blocked any other competitor from succeeding in the market". The key word being "effectively".
It matters because of American antitrust law (Score:4, Informative)
What they're doing is taking their existing market dominant position and using it to squeeze out competitors. We explicitly made that illegal because of the affect it has creating monopolies and stifling competition.
In America's capitalist system there are basically two things that have downward pressure on prices. The first is productivity increases and the second is competition.
We've had four decades of non-stop automation resulting in large productivity increases but those are slowing down a little and the current forms of automation don't really increase productivity they just replace existing workers.
That leaves competition is our only viable way to control prices and there's plenty of room for that if we enforce the laws. But if we don't we're going to continue to see runaway inflation at several times the rate of wage growth.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're doing is taking their existing market dominant position and using it to squeeze out competitors. We explicitly made that illegal because of the affect it has creating monopolies and stifling competition.
It is nice that it is illegal. It is nice that Google feels safe enough to break the law openly. It is nice that enforcement is actually noticing. It is nice that payments to certain individuals will make all of the enforcement go away while leaving the original behavior untouched.
It is a nice system that we have. We should protect it with our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft lost a pretty major anticompetitive case over being the default web browser.
And it's been argued that Google gains massive search quality gains by being popular. Not from R&D spend but being able to have reinforcement training from users selecting results.
You have pagerank from who links to who... but you also have user behavior which some are arguing is now more important. A user searches for "Tulip Bulbs" and then clicks on a link. Now you have a powerful signal that they found their searc
Valid link? (Score:1)
Bloomberg seems to be broken claiming it's detecting suspicious activity, probably because I dared to use Firefox rather than a google spyware. Can someone point me to a functioning article rather than something that blocks free software? This is slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
Those kinds of messages usually come up when you're using a VPN.
Why they don't just SAY they won't work with a VPN is beyond me.
Isn't this just product placement? (Score:2)
Monopoly (Score:2)
In the olden days, anticompetitive behavior was blowing up rival's train tracks, hiring goons to smash up factories, and bribing public officials and unions to sandbag competitors.
Nowadays it's paying to be the default setting on an app that takes ten seconds to change.
And this changes...what exactly? (Score:3)
Apple already testified that they believe Google provides the best results, which is why they never seriously considered Bing or others. If this ruling stands no one else will be able to make a similar deal, so it's entirely likely that Google will remain the default across these platforms, not because they're paying anyone, but simply because everyone sees them as the best choice and isn't in a position to cut a deal with anyone else. Why wouldn't they leave Google as the default in that case?
The only way anything changes is if these other companies are found to be in the wrong and are forced to provide an EU-style selection screen that lets users select their default search engine on first launch. But Apple and Samsung weren't on trial, so other than Google getting a slap on the wrist, nothing will change here.
Re: And this changes...what exactly? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see if Apple kept Google if Google stopped paying them. I have a feeling not. Suddenly they would have found a new best ever search engine, which just happens to pay them too.
Too little too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla must be worried. Google is a major source of income for them.
Re: (Score:2)
This should have been done years ago, the DOJ is too slow. They should have never approved the mergers in the first place.
Politicians failed to notice this new revenue stream until now. Since it is now noticed, the DOJ is activated to shake down Google in order to fill the politicians pockets. The behavior will continue.
Most people are clueless (Score:2)
We're geeks. That sort of thing comes naturally to us. The average American citizen, almost 50% of whom voted for Trump, cannot be expected to do well in this sort of thing.
Great for Google, bad for Apple, Samsung (Score:1)
I see this loss as a boon for Google. They no longer have to pay billions to Apple, Samsung, and others to be the default.
Customers will still be able to change the default to Google, which is probably likely what most folks will do.
Apple and the other recipients of Google's money seem like the ones with the most to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and the other recipients of Google's money seem like the ones with the most to lose.
How do you figure? A few billion dollars is a drop in the bucket for Apple or Samsung or Google. For the former two, it's just padding their bottom line. For Google, however, it's protecting their bottom line. By the time you're deemed a monopolist by the courts, the only direction you can go in the market is down, so a few billion spent on risk prevention is a small price to pay to mitigate the possibility of existential risk.
Apple and Samsung browsers together account for roughly 30% of the worldwide brow [statista.com]
And election interference (Score:2)
Google admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that its autocomplete feature omitted Trump from searches on presidential assassination attempts.
https://x.com/jameslynch32/sta... [x.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Trump isn't the president, so why would Google include his name among "presidential assassination attempts"?
If the search had specified assassination attempts of convicted felons and rapists, there's no question Trump's name would have come up. Google shouldn't be criticized for getting it right.
Google will do a Microsoft... (Score:2)
Google will do a Microsoft, appeal, drag it out, until Trump and/or a friend is in office, then will sign a consent decree and say "I'm sawwy..." like Microsoft did with George W. Bush. And then continue its pattern like Microsoft...stay tuned for more from the freedom, justice, and the American way....
JoshK.