The original lawsuits argued that Google had become too dominant in the market for general search services (like Google Search) and search advertising (ads that appear when you search for something).
A less convincing argument was about deals Google made with companies like Apple and other smartphone makers to ensure Google was the default search engine on most devices.
These claims were that it made it harder for other search engines to compete because users were more likely to use Google by default, giving Google more user data to improve its services and making it difficult for competitors to catch up.
After an extensive trial, the court concluded that Google is indeed a monopolist and has used its power to maintain its monopoly.
The court agreed that there are specific markets for general search services and general search text ads, and Google has monopoly power in these markets.
Google's distribution agreements (like those with Android device makers) were ruled to be exclusive and have negative effects on competition.
Google also did not provide sufficient reasons to justify these exclusive agreements.
The court noted that these agreements allowed Google to charge higher prices for text ads and limit competitors' ability to compete effectively.
Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is a key part of US antitrust law designed to promote economic fairness and competitiveness by prohibiting certain business practices that restrict trade and reduce economic competition.
This means Google used unfair practices to maintain its monopoly.
However, the court also found that Google does not have monopoly power in the broader market for search advertising and did not violate the law with its Google Search Ads 360 advertising platform.
This decision could lead to significant changes in how Google operates, especially regarding its agreements with other companies.
The court's ruling aims to promote fair competition and prevent Google from using its dominant position to stifle competitors.
