As one of the most powerful actors in the world, Google has been a major domination in the fields of search engine and advertising technologies for years. However, the two separate monopoly cases filed by the US Department of Justice show that this domination is now seriously questioned. On the one hand, Google’s operation is targeted in the search engine market and on the other hand with the regulations made in digital advertising technologies. The company is preparing to defend itself against these claims.
The judicial decisions taken last year revealed that Google has created illegal monopoly in two separate areas. Judge Amit Mehta, a Washington DC, found that the company’s search engine market applications prevented competition. Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia said that Google has connected two important services in the field of advertising technologies unlawfully. Both decisions reveal that the company is under investigation not only with the market share, but also by the methods it uses.
Interventions for Google’s functioning are becoming increasingly embodied
The new trial process, which will start on April 21, 2025 and will last for three weeks, deals with the sanctions to be implemented, especially in the search market. The Ministry of Justice demands that Google to dispose of the Chrome browser and share search data with competitors. In addition, the company’s privileged agreements with Apple and similar producers are required to end. Another important demand of the government is to impose Google’s obligation to regularly declare artificial intelligence investments.
Google argues that these demands may adversely affect the user experience and interrupt innovation processes. The company is especially trying to explain its success in the field of search engine with user preferences and technological superiority. However, since the court did not see these arguments sufficient in the previous stages, Google will only fight for the alleviation of penalties this time. This brings the course of the case to a different point.
One of the most fundamental elements that prevent competition, Google’s agreements with Apple are included. Thanks to these agreements, Google is presented as a default search engine in popular browsers such as safari. Doj states that this makes it almost impossible for alternative services to reach the user. In addition, the widespread use of Chrome leads to the collection of user data only on Google.
The only collection of this data on Google makes it difficult for competitor search engines to improve algorithms. Doj, therefore, demands that the data related to search queries be shared with competing companies transparently. Government officials emphasize that such arrangements should be designed to take into account not only the present but also future technological developments. Artificial intelligence -based search technologies can also create a new competition area.
In the digital advertising market, demands for Google are shaped at a more concrete and technical level. It is stated that the company’s publisher’s advertising presenter DFP and Adx Exchange ADX are connected to each other and reinforce the market domination. It is recommended that these two services be separated or carried out under independent companies. However, since this area is shaped directly through advertising revenues, sectoral effects can be faster faster.
Publishers, Google’s complaints against advertising technologies have been on the agenda for a long time. In particular, small and medium -sized media organizations are uncomfortable with the fact that income models depend on Google’s platform policies. For this reason, it is stated that an intervention that will increase competition can open space for publishers. However, this step should be planned technically carefully.
Uncertainty about when the judicial decisions will be concluded. Judge Mehta is expected to decide the sanctions on the search engine by the end of summer. Judge Brinkema is expected to determine the date of the trial for the advertising technologies case in the coming months. Following this process, Google’s appeal process will come into play and probably the decisions will spread to a legal process that lasts for years.
In any case, these cases have the potential to affect not only the future of Google, but also the structure of the digital market. Like an antitröst case against Microsoft in the early 2000s, this process can open space for new actors. At that time, with the reshaping of competition, Google had started a period when he came to the fore. Now the same Google targets a similar wave of change.