GOOGLE’S ANTITRUST CASES:- UNMASKING THE

INVINCIBLE

INTRODUCTION

“Google it up”- a very familiar phrase that is now being used very frequently. Whenever you
require any factual knowledge or any extract what do you do, you do a quick Google search
which is the most feasible option nowadays. According to the data, around 86.6 percent of the
general searches take place through Google. 1 But how many of you start with a yahoo search or
a Bing search, very few. Why is that the case? some say Google has monopolized the search
engine market by substantially foreclosing the competition, but some say that this is all the result
of persistent business improvement and modernization which people like apparently. But why is
this the burning question?. The US department of justice recently sued Google for creating an
illegal monopoly 2in the search engine market which is a relevant market 3. This action of the US
justice department is followed by multiple lawsuits by nearly 40 countries 4which alleges Google
of creating a monopoly and abusing its dominant position5. The suit is brought under Section 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, 18906 alleging Google unlawfully creating the monopoly through
anticompetitive and exclusionary practices. The US department of justice is putting a
multibillion-dollar search engine deal of Google with apple at the center of the antitrust issue,
according to the justice department the deal endangered the position of other search engines in
the market. The primary focus of this article is to analyze different allegations put forth by the
US justice department in the context of the antitrust laws and to analyze different types of
agreement of Google with other manufacturers and to analyze whether that agreements and deal
are anti-competitive.

GOOGLE’S DEAL WITH APPLE

Antitrust laws are statutes that are developed by the government to regulate the market and to
safeguard consumers and small business from illegal monopoly creating practices. The act
governing the antitrust laws in the US is the Sherman antitrust act, 1890. 7 The US justice
department alleged Google to have been involved in a trade restricting deal with apple. In the
united states, both the cell phone carriers, as well as the manufacturers, sell the mobile phone.
 8
These particular cell phone devices have a search access point that is the default search engine.
Google has struck a deal in which it pays 8-10 million dollars to apple to make Google search
engine the default search engine,9 so if any consumer takes any iPhone or any Apple device than
all the major access points lead to the default search engine that is the Google search engine.
According to the deal, Apple will make Google the default browser for safari and also use
Google for Siri. Through this, apple and other manufacturers which involve themselves in this
kind of deal maximizes the traffic of search to the default Google engine hence increasing the in
all revenue and creating the monopoly. This is an anti-competitive deal that monopolizes the
market for Google and this exclusionary conduct eliminates the other players in the search
engine market. According to the data, due to these exclusionary agreements, Google nowadays
acquires around 95 percent of the total search queries through cell phones.

REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENTS (RSA’S)

Google is involved in many RSA (revenue-sharing agreements with mobile phones). In these
agreements, Google demands a large number of the access point where the default search engine
will be Google,10 and in lieu of that Google shares revenue to the different mobile manufacturers
based on the number of ads that the access point generates. The revenue share is very high as the
significant part of the search engine market is operated through Google.

The revenue is only shared with the MADA (Mobile Application Distribution Agreement)
licensees,11 these are the lists providing the requirement for the manufacturer to install the
different Google applications. These also come with an exclusive home screen setup, where the
Google apps have to be on the home screen, and it ensures that it’s all search-related apps are
given the premium placement on the screen and the default search engine will be Google.
According to the justice department, MADA licensing and these exclusionary agreements are
anti-competitive and destroys the competition in the market. But it is pertinent to note that
engaging in the revenue sharing agreements is a business tactic of Google and hence as per the
expert there is nothing wrong in doing so. As of today, Google has RSA with most of the major
non-Google browser other than Microsoft, Mozilla, Firefox, and opera.
ANTI FORKING AGREEMENTS

Anti forking agreements are the agreement which is very commonly used by Google to create a
proper setup with the manufacturers.12 In these agreements, the manufacturers need to make
Google the default search engine and also provide different special features to the Google apps.
After sighing these agreements manufacturers can’t sell their products without the preinstalled
Google search apps such as Google Chrome, Google maps, etc. Google sets strict limits on the
distribution of the devices whose technical standards and design do not comply with Google.
Ones the manufacturer signs the anti-forking agreement there are certain requirements:-

1. Take other apps:- when a manufacturer opts for one of Google’s app than some of the
app comes in default which needs to be mandatorily preinstalled.
2. Undeletable feature:- When certain apps of Google are preinstalled then the
manufacturer under the anti forking agreement has to make the said app undeletable.
3. Screen features:- these apps preinstalled under the ant forking agreement need to be
given a special place on the home screen. This also comes under the MADA licenses.

The manufactures easily sign these agreements as the revenue shares that the Google provide are
extraordinary, while the other search engine like yahoo, DuckDuckgo, and Bing does not provide
such services. Anti forking agreements are said to be anti-competitive as these agreements set the
default search engine like Google, the placement of the Google app in the home screen and other
such setups are exclusionary and create a dominant position of Google. The US justice
department has alleged Google of abusing this dominant position to strike out the competitors
out of the market.

CONCLUSION

Google the biggest search engine in the world is sued by the US justice department under Section
2 of the Sherman Act, 1890 which basically gives the punishment for creating a monopoly by the
use of dominant position and also treats the monopoly creation as a felony. Different aspects of
the case have been analyzed above, many allegations are put forth on Google, which includes
firstly the deal with apple which made the search engine Google the default search engine for
Siri and safari. Secondly, the revenue sharing agreements with different companies created the
dominant position of Google in the market and the abuse of which is said to have occurred by the
US justice department. The justice department sees many issues related to Google’s growing
monopoly, with the introduction of new generation devices like Alexa, smart TV, and many
more, the capturing range of Google’s search engine is also expanding which could kill the
competition in the market. Also, the data taken by Google is said to breach a lot of customer
privacy, in the upcoming generation if there left no competition then there will be no obstruction
for Google, and then it can abuse its dominant position and can also wrongfully misuse the user’s
data. However, it is to be noted that Google is a private company and has all rights to allure
customers and to make deals that make profits for the company, it is acknowledged that Google
has various rights, but these rights should not supersede the lawful limits set by the statute. And
the financial profit-making interest of Google should not breach the rights of the customers by
creating a monopoly and eliminating competition in the market. Competition plays a very vital
role in any relevant market, the competition ensures a safeguard of rights of people and offers
then the best option available, but by eliminating competition the one who survives will be the
customers.
1
J. Clement, Global market share of search engines 2010-2020, Statista (Nov 20, 2020).

2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. GOOGLE LLC,  1:20-cv-03010 (District of Columbia) (pending).
3
Dirk Auer, what is search engine?, truth on the market, (21 October 2020), https://truthonthemarket.com/2020/10/21/what-
is-a-search-engine-2/#:~:text=General%20search%20is%20a%20relevant,one%20specific%20type%20of%20search.
4
Tony Romm, Nearly 40 states sue Google alleging search manipulation, marking the third antitrust salvo against the tech
giant, The Washington post, Dec. 18, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/17/google-search-
antitrust-lawsuit/.
5
Supra note 2.
6
Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, (1890).
7
ibid
8
Nick Statt, Google is still paying Apple billions to be the default search engine in Safari, The Verge, Jul 1, 2020,
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/1/21310591/apple-google-search-engine-safari-iphone-deal-billions-regulation-antitrust .
9
KATE DUFFY, Google paid Apple up to $12 billion for a search engine deal that disadvantaged competitors, landmark
antitrust suit claims, Business Insider, OCT 21, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/google-worked-as-1-
company-with-apple-paying-the-iphone-maker-up-to-12-billion-for-a-search-engine-deal-that-disadvantaged-competitors-
us-antitrust-suit-claims/articleshow/78790753.cms .
10
Supra note 2.
11
Robert nelson, Google’s MADA defines rules for Android device maker, May 5 2014,
https://androidcommunity.com/googles-mada-defines-rules-for-android-device-makers-20140505/ .

12
Edward Longe, The DOJ Antitrust Case Against Google: A Recap, The American consumer institute of centre for

citizen research,  October 21, 2020,  https://www.theamericanconsumer.org/2020/10/the-doj-antitrust-case-against-google-a-

recap/ .