Why Google’s latest antitrust trial in the US may be most consequential of the internet era

Subject :Economy

Section: Msc

Context

The US Department of Justice and 37 states claim Google illegally stifles competition by paying companies like Apple and Mozilla to remain the default search provider on mobile devices and browsers.

US Government’s Case Against Google

Alleges Google unlawfully stifles competition.
Google pays about $10 billion annually to Apple and Mozilla to secure default search provider status.
Accuses Google of exclusionary practices, denying competitors access to search queries and clicks.
Google holds a 90% market share in US search engines.
These agreements drive billions of queries to Google, limiting consumer choices and harming competition.

Google’s Response

Google denies illegal use of agreements and claims to provide a superior product.
Argues its “browser agreements” support legitimate competition.
Highlights evolving search habits, such as shopping on Amazon or finding entertainment on Instagram, reducing monopoly concerns.

Legal Position

The Sherman Act of 1890 governs competition law in US:
- Prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade.
- Violations can lead to fines and imprisonment.
Exclusive deals are generally legal but scrutinized if they harm competition.
The case tests the adaptability of antitrust laws to 21st-century markets.

What Happens Next

The trial is expected to last 10 weeks, featuring key testimonies from industry leaders.
Possible outcomes of the trial include the issuance of an injunction against Google, suggestions for the company’s breakup, and broader implications for other ongoing antitrust cases.

Google in India

CCI (Competition Commission of India) ordered Google to change anti-competitive practices in the Android ecosystem.
Imposes a fine of Rs 1,338 crore ($161.95 million) for abuse of dominance.
Google appeals to the NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), which upholds the penalty.
Google petitions the Indian Supreme Court; the case remains pending.

NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal):

NCLAT was established under the Companies Act, 2013, to hear appeals against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal(s) (NCLT).
It serves as the Appellate Tribunal for appeals against orders of NCLT(s) related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
NCLAT is also the Appellate Tribunal for appeals against orders issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.
It functions as the Appellate Tribunal for appeals against directions, decisions, or orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
NCLAT additionally handles appeals against orders of the National Financial Reporting Authority.

CCI (Competition Commission of India):

CCI enforces competition laws under the Competition Act, 2002, promoting fair competition.
It covers anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance, and Mergers and Acquisitions proposals’ anti-competitive effects, investigating practices harming competition or consumers.

CCI conducts investigations and can impose fines.