Another front has opened up in the confrontation between Big Tech and the state, with the beginning of the landmark antitrust trial against Google on Tuesday. The US Department of Justice and several states allege that the company is harming competition by paying billions every year to phone manufacturers such as Apple to ensure its search engine is the default option on their devices. Google commands around 90 per cent of the search market.
This is arguably the biggest antitrust case in recent times — the last such case was in 1998 when the US Justice Department accused Microsoft of “anticompetitive and exclusionary practices”, and extending its “monopoly to internet browsing software”.
On its part, and predictably, Google claims that it holds a commanding position in the search market because its product is superior to that of the competition. Users, it says, can just as easily switch to its competitors. Whether or not Google’s exclusive contracts helped secure its dominant position, and as a consequence negatively impacted its competitors, global tech giants do wield tremendous market power. This is not the only instance of allegations against Google of misusing its market position.
In January, the US Justice Department, along with attorneys general of several states had filed an antitrust case against Google for “monopolising digital advertising technology products”. They alleged that the company had engaged in “anti-competitive and exclusionary conduct”. The US is not the only jurisdiction where the tech giant has been caught in the regulatory crosshairs.
Last year, the Competition Commission of India had imposed a Rs 1,337.76 crore penalty on Google for anti-competitive practices in the Android mobile device ecosystem. CCI has also levied a Rs 936.44 crore penalty on the company for abusing its dominant position with regard to its Playstore policies.
Across the world, the regulatory framework must guard against firms abusing their dominant market position. At the same time, care should be taken that such actions do not stifle innovation. Any intervention must be guided by the objective of ensuring a level playing field, and preserving competition.
