News Post

The Google antitrust case must not end with a slap on the wrist

Economic Times · 2m

A federal judge has ruled that Google holds a monopoly on online search, and that it has illegally defended this monopoly for several years. The judge's decision raises the question of what the remedy should be. The remedy needs to break down the barriers that protect Google's monopoly, rather than just deliver a slap on the wrist. The government's case focused on the payments Google makes to be the default search engine on Apple and other devices, which the judge determined weakened Google's competitors. However, simply ending these agreements won't be enough to promote competition. The remedy should ensure fair competition in the search market and in emerging markets for AI-driven tech services. Examples from the past, like the remedies imposed on AT&T in the mid-20th century, can provide guidance for effective remedies. For instance, forcing Google to divest from its web browser, Chrome, and the Android operating system could improve prospects for competitors. Another possibility is granting free and open access to Google's AI technologies and data, similar to the 1956 AT&T decree. These remedies would level the playing field and promote innovation in the industry. It's important to remember that companies produce their best products and services when faced with strong competition. Therefore, it's time to give others a chance in the online search market.