The Court and the Computer: When a Judge Underestimated Technological Innovation
The antitrust case against Google was filed in 2020 and did not conclude until the beginning of this month. The last five years have been a case study in the differing paces of the judiciary and technological progress. Judge Mehta, who presided over the case, ruled on the remedies last week and his decision acknowledges a principle too often ignored in the rush to regulate, shrink, and stifle innovation: the bureaucratic solutions of today are too static for a dynamic technology market.
Last summer, Google was declared a monopoly with “anticompetitive practices.” Following this ruling, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google presented the court with their proposed remedies. The stated purpose of the remedies was to change parts of Google’s model in order to restore a “fair” playing field for other tech companies and search engines. The DOJ’s proposed remedies involved a fundamental restructuring of Google, including selling Chrome, and was broad enough to leave the future of the search engine in question. After over a year of back and forth, the courts ruled on the remedies.
Observers of both the DOJ and Google’s initial requests will notice that some of the most extreme requests from the DOJ were softened or avoided entirely in favor of the ones suggested by Google. For instance, Google was not forced to divest Chrome, its browser feature. However, the ruling was far from a clean break for the technology company and Judge Mehta ordered that Google share data with competitors. Surprisingly, the forced data sharing outlined by Mehta is mild compared to the level of data sharing initially proposed by the DOJ.
Though hardly a victory for the free market or the consumer welfare standard, the remedies decision reveals a recurring theme in legal and judicial pushes to regulate technology. Judge Mehta wrote in the first page of his decision, “The emergence of GenAI has changed the course of this case.” AI powered search engines, like ChatGPT, introduced an element into the playing field that those leveling accusations of “monopoly” against Google could have never predicted. More consumers are opting for GenAI technology to answer their queries and guide their online experience. Though Google has introduced its own AI features, it is certainly not the market behemoth that the prosecution originally painted it to be. The search engine field is more competitive than ever, with American companies vying against each other and using new technologies in inventive ways to expand their consumer base.
Courts and policymakers following the five-year saga of the Google antitrust case would do well to evaluate how the very playing field the DOJ was trying to level has shifted over the course of the proceedings. Efforts to create static rules for dynamic technologies often fall short, losing applicability and hindering the innovation that powers American greatness. The emergence of GenAI is not the first and certainly will not be the last disruption to the field of technology. The challenge, then, is to empower companies, innovators, and consumers to leverage that technology for good.
Links to Learn More
What the Google Antitrust Remedies Ruling Means for Antitrust, Consumers, and Innovation | Cato
Google Avoids Breakup but Faces New Data Sharing Requirements | American Enterprise Institute – AEI
