The Department of Justice's (DOJ) antitrust case against Google is raising concerns among business leaders. The case, currently in the remedies phase, challenges Google's success based on its innovation, partnerships, and scale, suggesting that achieving dominance might lead to antitrust scrutiny.
Google's success stems from technical excellence and innovation, leading it to become a dominant player in the search engine market. This dominance is a result of superior products and effective distribution, growing from 80% market share in 2009 to approximately 90% today.
The court found that Google's market position, along with its long-term contracts with companies like Apple and Mozilla, constituted illegal maintenance of monopoly power. The concern was that the duration of these contracts, spanning several years, appeared capable of blocking competitors, even though Google's success was lawfully earned.
The DOJ is proposing drastic remedies, including unwinding Google's distribution contracts, forcing access to proprietary infrastructure for rivals, and fundamentally altering Google's business model. This approach could set a precedent that penalizes business success, making any firm with exceptional quality, market share, and long-term partnerships potentially vulnerable.
The DOJ's actions challenge the principle of rewarding innovation and success, raising concerns about the future of competition and discouraging investment in strategic partnerships and long-term planning. It is argued that a more reasonable approach would be to limit exclusive defaults, but the DOJ's sweeping measures are perceived as a punishment for a successful business model.
The article concludes by urging the business community to take note of this case, as its outcome will have far-reaching implications for the regulatory landscape. The concern is that success itself might become a liability, prompting businesses to speak up and challenge the precedent-setting implications of the DOJ's actions.