Google is one of the most well-known websites in the history of the internet. For many users, “googling” is synonymous with internet search. However, some take issue precisely with this exceptional status, alleging that it is retained by illegitimate means.

While litigation concerning big corporations is nothing new or rare, a couple of antitrust cases currently faced by Google stand among the most significant since antitrust laws were introduced.

These two cases, concerning general internet search and digital ad services, reveal something fundamental about the world we live in today. Namely, the importance of web data in today’s markets is even bigger than we might have thought.

Google antitrust cases in brief

US antitrust laws are a collection of acts made to protect the process of fair competition that benefits the consumer.

As such, they ban any company from monopolising the market or using unreasonably anti-competitive business practices. This is what the suits led by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged Google had done in the search engine and ad tech industries.

Search engine monopoly

In the first complaint, the DOJ claimed that Google had used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in general search, search advertising, and general search text advertising services. The mentioned tactics include, for example, striking multibillion-dollar deals with other tech giants, such as Apple, to make Google the default search engine on its products.

In a landmark decision, the court upheld the complaint, ruling Google to be an illegal monopoly in the aforementioned areas.

Now, both sides, the plaintiffs and Google, can discuss the potential remedies for the situation. The remedies proposed by the DOJ include forcing Google to sell Chrome, the world’s most popular web browser. After the final decision by the court, Google will still have the chance to appeal, which might stretch the procedures into 2027 or even later. 

Ad tech antitrust lawsuit

In the second antitrust case, the DOJ blames Google for intentionally creating anti-competitive conditions in digital advertising.

According to the complaint, Google has neutralised all competition in ad tech either by acquiring competing solutions or using its market dominance to disrupt the ability of advertisers to use competing products effectively.

In closing arguments, the lawyer for the DOJ claimed that Google linked its main products in such a way that it is hard, if not impossible, for advertisers to use competing technologies.

Meanwhile, Google’s lawyers state, similarly to the other antitrust case, that Google’s success comes from innovation and superior products. Unlike in the search engine case, the plaintiffs have pre-emptively asked to break up Google’s ad tech business if it is judged to be a monopoly.

A tightening grip on Google?

The two cases in the US are not the only antitrust-related trouble for Google. Regulators in the UK and EU have also been interested in the competitive conditions in the cyberspace lately.

In the latter jurisdiction, Google has, in fact, recently won a legal battle to overturn an antitrust fine of €1.49 billion imposed by the European Commission targeting Google’s online advertising business.

This victory for Google, however, does not tell us much about what to expect from the US court’s decision since, although both cases relate to Google’s digital advertising practices, their scope and subject matter are quite different.

Instead, these cases suggest that regulators around the world are intensifying their watch on big tech’s perceived monopolistic practices. They are imposing huge fines, demanding them to cease activities deemed anti-competitive, and even suggesting that the only remedy might be to break up companies like Google.

In Google’s case, the most talked about potential outcome of the cases is the possibility of forcing it to sell Chrome. However, another potential remedy — making Google syndicate the data it has accumulated — is both more likely and more impactful.

Recommended reading

• Are Google’s Digital Advertising Methods Anti-Competitive?
• Google Says Only “Harm” Will Come From Chrome Split
• Google and Apple Face CMA Probe over Mobile Browser Market ‘Duopoly’ 

It’s all about the data

The history of major antitrust cases in the US supports the common sentiment that data is the new oil. The biggest current case under antitrust law is in many ways about access to data, without which competing in the digital markets is nearly impossible.

Specifically, web data, whether publicly available or collected by big companies internally, has become the most valuable resource.

The remedies framework proposed by the DOJ after the decision in the search engine case states that “Virtually every component and process of a general search engine benefits from data.”

It is argued that Google’s dominance allows it to accumulate much more data on search queries than its rivals, putting it in a position to perpetuate this dominance. Thus, the suggestion is that to restore competitive conditions in the market, Google should be made to share its data for a price with the competitors. 

Exclusive access to data is also mentioned repeatedly in the digital advertising case’s complaint as one of the main factors making competition against Google impracticable.

Thus, if Google were to lose this trial, the breaking up of its digital advertising business, already requested in the suit, would actually serve to unbundle the data streams, dividing them among different owners.

Google’s side is supported by legitimate privacy concerns raised by the prospect of sharing data with more organisations. Yet, regulators might see the exclusive access to web data as an even bigger issue, threatening the very functioning of free markets.

The alleged privileged access to data is especially critical in the unfolding age of AI. Web data fuels AI development and functioning.

If one company has all the data while others struggle to get it, that company is in a much better position to create and control AI products of the future. Thus, having a monopoly or near monopoly on web data today could effectively mean monopolising large areas of tomorrow’s tech.

This seems to be one of the major concerns of the DOJ and other regulatory agencies. Whether and how this concern should be addressed in the discussed cases is for the courts to decide. However, one thing is certain.

While the prospect of Google having to sell Chrome or Android might be the one making headlines, the most important question investigated by the courts is that of access to web data.

Lesson for the future — protecting public data access

As the Google antitrust trials exemplified, access to web data has become the backbone of effective competition. Such data can be external and publicly available to all capable of gathering it, or it can be internally collected by companies like Google, owning and administering various tools and platforms.

In both cases, privacy concerns need to be balanced with fair access to resources for businesses of various sizes to effectively compete and innovate. Thus, one of the main aims of digital regulation should be to protect free, fair, and secure access to web data. This might help prevent another series of lengthy antitrust litigation.