Google has a monopoly in internet search and has abused its market power to consolidate this position, according to a US court. It is still unclear what specific measures will be taken as a result of the ruling. However, some of Google's competitors have clear ideas.
In a nearly 300-page ruling, US judge Amit Mehta not only confirmed that Google has a monopoly on Internet searches, but also ruled that the company abused its market power to consolidate this position. For example, the US company pays a lot of money to be the default search engine on Apple devices. The same applies to the Firefox browser.
Monopoly ruling: How can the search engine market be regulated?
For the time being, however, no consequences will arise from the monopoly ruling. Specific measures will be clarified in further proceedings. Google will probably appeal in both cases, which in turn will likely result in a process lasting years, if not decades.
Many Google competitors have therefore reacted positively to the ruling, but have been rather cautious in their comments. Nevertheless, some have already suggested concrete changes and measures. According to DuckDuckGo, The Verge For example, to hear that some solutions from Europe could be quite effective if they were better implemented.
For example, the EU showed users a selection screen to at least remind them of other search engines. However, the measure turned out to be more of a flop, as Google's market share remained constant. DuckDuckGo therefore advocates displaying such selection screens on a regular basis. However, many users may find this annoying.
The company also suggests that Google should be prohibited by law from appearing as the default search engine on certain devices in return for payment. While this may not be a major problem for Apple, it could cause Mozilla in particular to face significant financial problems.
Break up Google?
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman argues in an official blog post that Google should be required to “spin off services that have unfairly profited from its search monopoly, a simple and enforceable means of preventing future anti-competitive behavior.”
According to Stoppeln, US judge Amit Mehta should also prohibit the US company from using exclusive standard search contracts and giving preference to its own content in search results. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, said The Verge The idea of forcing Google to separate its Chrome and Android businesses came into play.
The reason: According to Kint, Google would use the data from the browser and the mobile operating system to increase the volume of search queries and to advertise products even more specifically. In concrete terms, this means that Google Chrome and Android would have to be broken up into two companies.
Google monopoly: “Yes, we are the best”
Despite numerous potential scenarios, one thing is clear: the monopoly case will probably drag on for a long time. The US company has already announced that it intends to appeal the ruling.
A one official statement It is said, for example, that the ruling acknowledges that Google simply has the best search engine. What the US company forgets in this rather idiosyncratic interpretation, however, is that the ruling not only confirms that Google has a monopoly, but also concludes that the company has abused its market power to achieve this position.
Also interesting:
Source: https://www.basicthinking.de/blog/2024/08/12/nach-monopol-urteil-diese-aenderungen-fordert-die-google-konkurrenz/
