December 17, 2020
~~~
Bipartisan
Coalition of 38 Attorneys General Allege Google Illegally Maintained a
Monopoly, Created Insurmountable Barriers to Entry for Competitors
Carson City,
NV – Today, Nevada Attorney
General Aaron D. Ford joined a bipartisan coalition of 38 attorneys general
suing Google LLC for anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.
The states allege
that Google illegally maintains its monopoly power over general search engines
and related advertising markets through a series of anticompetitive exclusionary
contracts and conduct. As a result, Google has deprived consumers of competition
that could lead to greater choice, innovation and better privacy protections. Furthermore,
Google has exploited its market position to accumulate and leverage data to the
detriment of consumers.
“Virtually every day, consumers rely on search
engines to find essential goods and services,” said AG Ford. “But consumers do not realize how their choices are
impacted by conduct behind the scenes. The same was true 40 years ago when the
Department of Justice pursued the telephone monopoly, and 20 years ago when it
addressed monopolistic conduct in the internet-browsing context. As technology
evolves, it is important to keep competition alive for the benefit of all
consumers. This lawsuit seeks to do just that.”
The states’
complaint is consistent with the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) on October 20th which alleged that Google improperly
maintains its monopoly power in general search and search advertising through
the use of exclusionary agreements. The states’ filing asserts additional
allegations and describes Google’s monopoly maintenance scheme as a multi-part
effort.
The lawsuit also
alleges that Google:
Uses
exclusionary agreements and other practices to limit the ability of rival
general search engines and potential rivals to reach consumers. This conduct
cements Google as the go-to search engine on computers and mobile devices;
Disadvantages
users of its search-advertising management tool, SA360, by promising that it
would not favor Google search advertising over that of competing search engines
such as Bing. Instead, Google continuously favors advertising on its own
platform, inflating its profits to the detriment of advertisers and consumers;
and
Discriminates
against specialized search sites – such as those that provide travel, home
repair, or entertainment services – by depriving them access to prime real
estate because these competing sites threaten Google’s revenue and dominant
position.
The attorneys general argue that more competition in the
general search engine market would benefit consumers, for example, through
improved privacy protections and more targeted results and opportunities for
consumers. Competitive general search engines also could offer better quality
advertising and lower prices to advertisers.
The
attorneys general expand on the U.S. DOJ’s allegation that Google’s
anticompetitive conduct continues. As explained in the complaint, the company seeks
to deploy the same exclusionary contracting tactics to monopolize the emerging
ways consumers access general search engines, such as through their home smart
speakers, televisions, or in their cars. In doing so, Google is depriving
consumers of competitive choices and blocking innovation.
The states
also go further than the U.S. DOJ in explaining how Google’s acquisition and
command of vast amounts of data – obtained in increasing part because of
consumers’ lack of choice – has fortified Google’s monopoly and created
significant barriers for potential competitors and innovators.
The
attorneys general ask the court to halt Google’s illegal conduct and restore a
competitive marketplace. The states also seek to unwind any advantages that
Google gained as a result of its anticompetitive conduct, including divestiture
of assets as appropriate. Finally, the court is asked to provide any additional
relief it determines appropriate, as well as reasonable fees and costs to the
states.
The
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in
conjunction with a Motion to Consolidate seeking to combine the states’ case with
the pending U.S. DOJ case. The filed complaint is attached.
In addition
to Nevada, other joining states included: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam and
Puerto Rico.
###