The judge overseeing the landmark U.S. antitrust case against Google sought to poke holes in both sides' cases during closing arguments Thursday, weighing a ruling that could reshape the technology industry.
Judge Amit P. Mehta presided over the first day of closing arguments in the most significant technology antitrust case since the U.S. government sued Microsoft in the late 1990s. The Department of Justice has sued Google, accusing it of illegally strengthening its online search monopoly. Google denied this claim.
Judge Mehta on Thursday questioned the government's argument that Google's dominance has undermined the quality of the online information search experience. But he also called on Google to defend its central claim that it is not a monopoly because consumers rely on other companies, such as Amazon to search for shopping items and TikTok to search for music clips.
“Certainly, I don't think the average person would say, 'Google and Amazon are the same thing,'” Judge Mehta said.
His ruling, expected in the coming weeks and months, will set a precedent for a series of government challenges to the size and power of tech giants. Federal regulators have also filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, and Meta, and are also filing his second lawsuit against Google over online advertising.
Before closing arguments began in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jonathan Canter, head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, asked Kent Walker, Google's global president, for a chat.
Judge Mehta began the hearing by asking Kenneth Dinzer, the Justice Department's lead trial attorney in the case, about innovations in search.
The government argues that a lack of competition in the online search business (almost 90 percent of all searches are done on Google) means Google doesn't need to invest in the quality of its search experience. But Judge Mehta told Dinzer that it was difficult to “dispute that search today is very different than it was 10 to 15 years ago” and that some of that change was due to the work of Google. Stated.
Judge Mehta said: “It seems like a difficult path for you to follow for me to conclude that Google is not innovating enough.”
The Justice Department also argued that Google does not have privacy protections in place for its search engine because it has a monopoly position and does not face strong competition. The judge interrupted Dinzer and said there could be a “trade-off” between privacy and search quality. Judge Mehta added that the challenge is how to determine whether Google has taken sufficient steps to protect user privacy.
Judge Mehta confronted Google's chief litigation officer, John E. Schmidlein, over his argument that companies like Amazon and ESPN are true competitors to the company's search engine. He said if you wanted to know who the 1983 Baltimore Orioles shortstop was, you'd likely use Google.