A recap of the first day of US et al v. Google, as the DOJ argues that the company illegally protected its internet search monopoly via smartphone maker deals

In opening statements for the government's first monopoly trial of the modern internet era, Google defended itself and said people had many choices for online search.

New York Times 2023-09-13

Context & Ripple Effects

The opening followed a preview of the modern internet era's first federal monopoly trial, which had been expected to test how Google secured search distribution. A live account as proceedings began established the DOJ's focus on the agreements behind search access rather than on search quality alone.

The case matters because it puts the commercial arrangements that place a search service in front of users under antitrust scrutiny. Google’s defense centers on the proposition that users retain meaningful alternatives.

First-order effects

Google and the DOJ begin litigating whether Google’s smartphone-maker agreements unlawfully preserved its search position; those agreements become the central factual and legal focus.
Phone makers and other distribution partners face heightened scrutiny of the terms that make Google readily available to their users, while Google must defend those terms as competition on the merits.

Second-order effects

The trial raises the stakes for rival search providers seeking device distribution: the viability of their challenge depends partly on whether default placement and user choice are treated as decisive competitive advantages.
Device partners may need to weigh the value of distribution agreements against their exposure to disclosure and legal scrutiny, even before any ruling changes their contracts.

Third-order effects

If courts treat default-search arrangements as a mechanism for maintaining market power, platform distribution deals could become a more durable antitrust fault line rather than a routine commercial practice.
The case tests whether consumer switching in theory is enough to discipline a dominant service when access is shaped by device-level placement—a question that could influence how gatekeeper power is assessed.

The trend: Antitrust scrutiny is increasingly focusing on the distribution and default agreements through which digital platforms convert product reach into durable market power.

Discussion

@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on threads
Apple says “privacy is a human right” but would rather collect $10 billion a year from Google than set DuckDuckGo as the default search engine in Safari. I guess human rights have a dollar value at Cupertino.
@parismarx Paris Marx on x
Tech monopolies cause a lot of harm, but as the DoJ starts making its case against Google, why has it been so hard to break up Big Tech? What often goes unacknowledged is that globally, Silicon Valley and Washington DC are allies to sustain US power. https://www.disconnect.blog/ …
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
ok...USA v Google Day One 1am dump. On a positive, I was able to be in-person for every minute. Thrilled as it's the only way I could capture my 8 pages of notes. I'm going to focus on items of interest I think others might miss starting with 1st witness then work backward. /1
@alexiskweed Alexis Keenan on x
DOJ is arguing scale is critically important to $GOOG's dominance + motive to block competition. Varian says scale is important but not the whole picture. In 2009 emails Google's Udi Manber writes: “If $MSFT had the same traffic we have their quality will improve *significantly*”
@lutherlowe Luther Lowe on x
Some trial coverage saying Google pays Apple “$10 billion” for iOS defaults. The number is closer to double that, per smartest analysts and Sundar's non-denial last year. The # is still technically confidential hence DOJ said “*over* 10b” today #USvGoogle [video]
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Google chief legal officer Kent Walker exits the court house with his legal team. [image]
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Yes I'm very interested in DOJ v Google but not enough to get in line at 4:30am and then have my phone turned off. Thus I'm listening in to the audio line. But kudos to @ceciliakang for capturing first-in-line folks @megangrA @LeeHepner @lutherlowe [image]
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Later DOJ depicts Yahoo as a victim for losing the Mozilla search deal to Google. But even DOJ says that's because Yahoo stuffed their results full of too many ads, so quality declined. [image]
@fosspatents Florian Mueller on x
Pro-Google commentators of all sorts say the DOJ has no case. And that this is about helping competitors, not protecting the competitive process. That's wrong. The DOJ faces a high hurdle, but Google has ensured that competition is not just one click away, but billions of $$
@stephen_kent89 Stephen Kent on x
DOJ - “This case is about the future of the Internet — and if Google will EVER face meaningful competition for online searches” Meanwhile in real life: [Screenshot of a New York Times story from 17 September 2022: For Gen Z, TikTok Is the New Search Engine]
@wendyndavis Wendy Davis on x
DOJ concludes: Defaults powerful, scale matters, @Google illegally maintained monopoly for more than a decade
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
MSFT's complaint - carried by CO here - is that Google didn't build all of the MSFT ad platform features into SA360. Of course, SA360 isn't any kind of “essential facility,” but CO wants to force Google to build MSFT features into SA360.
@pweiser Phil Weiser on x
Our trial against Google begins today, after years of preparation and hard work by a great team. Google has abused its monopoly to undermine competition and harm consumers. This case is about remedying those harms and restoring competition to the market. https://www.wired.com/...
@papscun Dan Papscun on x
DOJ “will introduce evidence at trial of Google's intent to maintain its monopoly, including Google's deliberate destruction and concealing of evidence that could demonstrate its liability.” Here's my story on how that tactic could play out at trial. https://news.bloomberglaw.com…
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Google: Testimony from Apple and Mozilla execs will show that Google won default deals on the quality merits
@hughlangley Hugh Langley on x
- We also heard opening arguments from the states and territories that joined the case - Argument is that Google has delayed rolling out certain features in Search Ads 360 to Microsoft - Lawyer described delay as “Like waiting for a Yankees fan to invite you to a Mets game”
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
CO AG now turning to SA360. This is kind of a niche aspect of the trial. SA 360 is Google's product that helps advertisers run ad campaigns across multiple ad platforms - Google, Bing, etc.
@hughlangley Hugh Langley on x
Arguments from Google's lawyer: - Microsoft makes Bing the default on PCs out of the box - Claims that majority of PC users still search on Google and not Bing - Claims Bing has “failed to win customers” because MSFT did not invest enough in it
@martyswant Marty Swant on x
I've been listening to the opening arguments in the @TheJusticeDept v @Google #antitrust trial & the case is a great crash course for anyone who doesn't understand digital advertising & how it's evolved over time. (I'm curious how many advertisers are paying attention too.)
@hughlangley Hugh Langley on x
Ok, Google DOJ trial is taking a break. Here are the key moments so far: - DOJ lawyer says Google pays more than $10 billion a year to partners including Apple to be the default search engine - Says Google saw risk of losing its default placement on Apple devices as a “code red”
@lutherlowe Luther Lowe on x
In the motion for summary judgment, the judge DID NOT dismiss the states' arguments about SVPs entirely. 🚫 (4/9) [image]
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Here's the internal Google email on trying to exclude Branch technologies from Samsung's phones. https://www.justice.gov/... [image]
@nancyscola Nancy Scola on x
Judge Mehta interrupted with a few questions, inc. why TikTok, Facebook, & ChatGPT aren't rightly considered part of the search engine market. U.S.'s take: “None of those alternatives do what general search does,” because they neither search nor link to the ‘general web.’
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Important question ⤵️. Chrome is NOT part of the case; no argument by DOJ that Google is inappropriately preferencing Google search through Chrome. https://twitter.com/...
@ibangarciadb @ibangarciadb on x
In first tech antitrust trial in decades, DOJ takes on Google Though the case focuses narrowly on Google's monolithic search engine, the 10-week trial has expansive implications for the Internet giant's business ambitions @washingtonpost https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@stephen_kent89 Stephen Kent on x
Sitting in a federal courtroom today to observe the start of U.S., et al. v. Google LLC, the DOJ's first major antitrust case against a tech firm since Microsoft 20 years ago. At issue is the popularity and widespread use of Google Search.
@brendaneich @brendaneich on x
Yahoo deal started December, 2014. But over the next year, Google got back most of those default searchers, and Yahoo bled money for low-to-no traffic. Verizon bought Yahoo, claimed breach (Mozilla did too), deal ended without full fixed tail payout. Mozilla went back to Google.
@ddayen David Dayen on x
At this hour, the US v. Google trial is kicking off in Washington, the first major monopolization case in 25 years. Here's what's at issue in the case, and how it's just one of a series of assaults on corporate power from this set of antitrust enforcers: https://prospect.org/...
@lukewgoldstein Luke Goldstein on x
Sir, there's a pickleball reference in the opening paragraph of the DOJ's pretrial brief on the Google antitrust case today [image]
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
This is interesting. DOJ is talking about a product called Branch, which was a search product to look on the phone, not the web. Google explicitly prohibited AT&T and Samsung from integrating Branch's search tools.
@daphnehk Daphne Keller on x
It makes me so sad that Google assumes every search user just wants to go shopping or watch videos. It's a tragedy now, but it would go directly to the farce stage if that product decision turned out to be driven by the antitrust legal strategy. https://www.nytimes.com/... [image…
@netchoice @netchoice on x
STARTING TODAY: THE DOJ'S TRIAL BEGINS TO PUNISH GOOGLE FOR BEING TOO POPULAR. The Biden administration thinks it knows better than consumers, and it is trying to break highly valued services like Google. WASHINGTON—Today, the Justice Department begins its effort in a U.S....
@wendyndavis Wendy Davis on x
Judge in @Google antitrust trial just interrupted DOJ opening statement to ask what time frame was at issue. DOJ says @Google began “improperly maintaining” monopoly in 2010.
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
All tech/media eyes are, and should be, on DC Prettyman courthouse today for the opening of 2020 USA vs Google. For those not following closely, USA has a parallel adtech antitrust lawsuit moving blazingly fast having only been filed in January just across the Potomac.
@econliberties @econliberties on x
🚨TODAY: The most important antitrust trial of the century begins. US v Google will affect how the entire internet works, yet Google wants this trial as inaccessible as possible. Make sure to follow @LeeHepner's dispatches from the frontlines.👇
@leehepner Lee Hepner on x
The lack of transparency is galling. Extremely limited in-person seating, even DOJ counsel told that they only have limited seats. No phones or laptops allowed, not even in overflow. For a trial about control over information flows, transparency is taking a back seat. #USvGoogle

Chronicles