Google abused a monopoly in Internet search and its market power to consolidate that position, a US court has ruled. However, it is still unclear which specific measures will accompany the ruling. However, some Google competitors have clear ideas.
US judge Amit Mehta challenged Google in a nearly 300-page long Verdict not only certified a monopoly in Internet searches, but also ruled that the company had abused its market power to consolidate this position. For example, the US company pays a lot of money to be the default search engine on Apple devices. The same applies to the Firefox browser.
Monopoly ruling: How can the search engine market be regulated?
First of all, there are no consequences from the monopoly ruling. Because specific measures should be clarified in a further procedure. Google will likely appeal both cases, which in turn could result in a lawsuit that will last years, if not decades.
Numerous Google competitors therefore reacted positively to the verdict, but were rather reserved. However, some have already brought concrete changes and measures into play. People around DuckDuckGo were loud The Verge For example, hearing that some solutions from Europe could be effective if they were implemented better.
For example, the EU has shown users a selection screen to at least remind them of other search engines. However, the measure turned out to be a flop as Google’s market share remained constant. DuckDuckGo therefore advocates displaying such selection screens regularly. However, many users could also find this annoying.
The company also suggests that a court should ban Google from appearing as the default search engine on certain devices in exchange for payment. This shouldn’t be a big problem for Apple, but Mozilla in particular could have significant financial problems as a result.
Smash Google?
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman makes a plea in one official blog post that Google should be required to “spin off services that have unfairly benefited from its search monopoly, a simple and enforceable means of preventing future anti-competitive behavior.”
According to Stoppelman, US judge Amit Mehta should also prohibit the US group from using exclusive standard search contracts and favoring its own content in the search results. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, said loudly The Verge again floated the idea of forcing Google to separate its Chrome and Android businesses.
The reason: According to Kint, Google would use the data from the browser and the mobile operating system to increase the volume of search queries and advertise products even more specifically. Specifically, this means that Google Chrome and Android would have to be broken up into two companies.
Google monopoly: “Yes, we are the best”
Despite numerous potential scenarios, one thing is clear: the monopoly process will probably take a long time. The US company has already announced that it intends to appeal the verdict.
One one official statement it says, for example, that the ruling would recognize that Google simply has the best search engine. What the US company forgets in this rather idiosyncratic interpretation: The verdict not only certifies that Google has a monopoly, but also shows that the company abused its market power in order to achieve this position.
Also interesting:
- A lot of ambiguity: AI Act comes into force – and initially doesn’t change anything
- AI as a judge: The advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence in the judiciary
- Monitoring through AI: Germany needs an employee data protection law
- Dollars or data: what exactly is Pay or Okay?
The article After the monopoly ruling: Google’s competition is demanding these changes by Fabian Peters appeared first on BASIC thinking. Follow us too Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
As a tech industry expert, I believe that the monopoly ruling against Google is a significant development that could have far-reaching implications for the digital landscape. The demands for changes from Google’s competitors are not surprising, as the company’s dominant position in the search market has long been a source of concern for many in the industry.
It is clear that Google’s practices have stifled competition and innovation, making it difficult for other companies to compete on a level playing field. The demands for changes, such as increased transparency in search algorithms and giving equal treatment to rival services, are necessary steps to promote fair competition and consumer choice.
Google has built its empire on its search engine dominance, but it is important for the company to be held accountable for any anti-competitive behavior. By implementing the changes demanded by its competitors, Google can help create a more competitive and diverse digital ecosystem that benefits both consumers and businesses.
Overall, the monopoly ruling against Google and the demands for changes from its competitors are positive steps towards fostering a more open and competitive tech industry. It will be interesting to see how Google responds to these demands and how it will impact the future of the digital landscape.
Credits