Google Vows to Appeal Antitrust Ruling as Tech Industry Speculates on Implications

Day one of the post-Google antitrust ruling era kicked off with a reaction from the defendant in the case and a slew of “what ifs” about the implications of the decision for the connected economy.

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” said Google global affairs President Kent Walker in a statement sent to PYMNTS.

“We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

Walker’s comments address some of the findings issued Monday (Aug. 5) by U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, who found that Google illegally maintained monopolies in the markets for general search services and general search text advertising through its exclusive distribution agreements.

After a nine-week bench trial that concluded in November 2023, Mehta ruled that Google’s distribution agreements with mobile device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and web browser developers foreclosed rivals from key distribution channels and allowed Google to unlawfully maintain its monopoly power. Mehta’s ruling did not recommend remedies for what he called Google’s monopolistic practices, and the reality is that the appeal could stretch deep into 2025 and maybe beyond.

All of which left industry pundits and legal analysts to discuss the implications of the decision on search and the extent of the partnerships that drive the connected economy. For example, Apple Magazine speculated that Apple might develop its own search engine.

“Google may need to explore new avenues to maintain its search dominance, while Apple might consider developing its own search capabilities or forging partnerships with alternative providers,” its editors wrote.

“The decision also highlights the ongoing need for regulatory vigilance in the fast-paced tech industry. As digital ecosystems become increasingly integral to daily life, ensuring fair competition and preventing monopolistic practices becomes ever more crucial. While Google is expected to appeal the decision, potentially extending the legal battle, the mere prospect of change is already stirring innovation in the search engine market. Competitors are likely gearing up to seize this opportunity, potentially leading to a more diverse and competitive digital landscape.”

One of the most complete and informed interpretations came from the American Action Forum. Jeffrey Westling, the group’s director of technology and innovations policy, argued that Google will have a strong case upon appeal.

Westling said that while the decision is a significant win for the Department of Justice, it demonstrates that current antitrust laws are sufficient to address anticompetitive behavior in online markets. He contended that the court’s opinion follows established legal principles and that Congress need not create new legislation targeting Big Tech. He suggested that the case shows how antitrust law can be applied to online marketplaces and that size alone is not illegal if companies benefit consumers and competition.

“The court’s decision is a major win for the DOJ in its antitrust case against Google,” Westling wrote. “What’s more, the opinion highlights how current law is more than capable of addressing harm in online markets. While Google will appeal the ruling — it has some strong arguments with which to do so — Congress should allow the courts to continue examining specific conduct and evaluating whether it harms competition rather than crafting unnecessary legislation to prohibit a wide range of conduct solely due to fears that firms are too large.”