In the age of technological innovation, the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Google, now on trial, appears to be a misguided attempt to have lawyers reshape the digital landscape. The government asserts that this case is about the "future of the internet and whether Google will ever face meaningful competition," and while the concern about how this case will affect the future of the internet is valid, the notion that the government can artificially create competition for Google is fundamentally flawed.
The government's primary contention centers on Google's practice of paying web browser and mobile phone providers to feature its search engine as the default option. This tactic, though, is far from unique; it mirrors common business practices in which suppliers pay premiums to secure prominent placement on store shelves or online marketplaces. These arrangements are often win-win-win scenarios, benefiting consumers, providers, and suppliers alike.
Google's payments to browser and phone providers ensure that consumers have access to its search engine with ease. This facilitates an improved user experience and bolsters the financial stability of these providers, enabling them to invest in even more attractive services. In turn, consumers benefit from better products, readily available at their fingertips, while suppliers expand their customer base.
To label Google's actions as anticompetitive, one must assert that Google's search engine attains default status not on merit but through other means. This is a challenging argument to support. A comprehensive investigation conducted by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in 2020 found that consumers primarily choose search engines based on the “relevance of search results.” The CMA's review of various studies indicated that consumers prefer Google search due to its effectiveness.
However, this preference for Google does not preclude competition. The CMA's findings also suggest that consumer perceptions are influenced by Google's reputation. Google has earned the trust and confidence of users, but reputations can change, presenting opportunities for rivals to compete. As I tell students, you can sell your good name, you can never buy it back.
Mozilla's experience with its Firefox browser supports this contention. In 2014, Mozilla switched its default search engine for US consumers from Google to Yahoo, in part because Firefox competed with Google’ Chrome browser. Yet, it ultimately returned to Google in 2017 because US Firefox users preferred Google search. This example underscores the value consumers place on their preferred search engine as the default while highlighting the fierce competition among search providers.
Moreover, other signs indicate the intense rivalry for providing consumers with search information. Surveys have shown that Gen Zers are increasingly favoring platforms like TikTok for search, and a substantial portion of US online shoppers begin their searches on Amazon. These trends illustrate that competition is alive and well.
A potentially transformative development on the horizon is generative artificial intelligence, which promises to revolutionize search. While not yet ready to replace traditional search engines, whose basic technology is now 30 years old, generative AI is making strides in specialized vertical search areas, such as travel recommendations, career guidance, and problem-solving.
At the heart of this lawsuit lies the question of whether consumers will retain control over the digital ecosystem they have helped shape and guide. It also raises concerns about whether the next generation of search and online services will evolve through consumer choice or be dictated by antitrust lawyers. Regardless of the outcome, the message sent by the government is clear: any business that pleases large numbers of customers is at risk of being unreasonably targeted and restrained.
The government's antitrust case against Google threatens to stifle innovation, hinder consumer choice, and disregard the competitive dynamics already at play in the digital sphere. While vigilance against anticompetitive behavior is important, it should not come at the cost of suppressing market-driven competition and the freedom of choice that consumers have worked to establish in the digital era.
Mark Jamison is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he works on how technology affects the economy, and on telecommunications and Federal Communications Commission issues.
Read Full Article »