Everyday, hundreds of millions Americans wake up, turn on their phone and Google something. From the weather to breaking news, use of the premiere search engine is integral in modern American life. Beating out competitors with outdated aesthetics and incomparable algorithms, Google commands a whooping 87% search engine market share. In turn, politicians from both parties routinely scrutinize the tech giant as a “monopoly” potentially “too big to fail.”
Most recently, this political pressure surmounted in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division successfully suing Google for its product bundling with Apple products. The case alleged Google’s partnership with Apple, who maintains over 58% of the United State’s cell phone market, was unfair to consumer choice and tech competitiveness. But the simple fact is nobody wants to wake up and “Bing” whether it will rain this afternoon or what happened in the news.
Foundational to the case was that Apple only defaults to Google’s search engine because they receive payment for doing so. Resting its case on the idea that the two Big Tech companies colluded against competitors like Bing (which, ironically, is owned by the multi-trillion dollar company Microsoft), the Department of Justice (DOJ) falsely assumed Apple device owners are being forced to use Google on a daily basis.
Yet, this alleged corrupt bargain is patently false. Apple has confirmed that they will not ditch their default to Google’s search engine, regardless of the financial incentives of a Microsoft partnership. Attuned with the product use of their customers, Apple understands that Bing and other platforms offer lackluster search results and an unappealing platform.
Ultimately, the DOJ has misrepresented public sentiment in its pursuit of antitrust in-name-only. Mimicking the EU’s tyrannical tech tirade, this case blindly ignores a consumer-oriented legal standard and marches forward with vibes-based, “big is bad” hipster antitrust. Never mind market behaviors and customer preference, lawyers in Washington know best where we should look things up.
The erosion of the consumer welfare standard, an empirical, economics-driven approach to antitrust that prioritizes individuals over ideology, will further politicize business. Rather than letting companies grow, with occasional mergers and acquisitions, in the way they have for decades, Washington will call balls-and-strikes on private corporate activity. In this case, the everyday use of Google comes under heat from Bing’s biggest fans.
Led by prominent voices including Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, the hipster antitrust movement — also referred to as Neo-Brandeis — has quietly moved progressive politics from a preventative regulatory model to “break ‘em up” Occupy Wall Street tactics. Digressing tangible data on the finances of market competitiveness and opportunity, product pricing, and consumer accessibility, the DOJ and FTC’s current leadership have turned to virtue signaling over concerns with stagnant wage growth and unemployment.
Political posturing and electoral efforts shouldn’t drive the policies pursued by our government. Driven by perceived threats to workers’ rights and prosperity, hipster antitrust lies in quantitatively murky waters.
Just as science relies on experimental studies and infrastructure depends on civil engineering, regulatory law ought to follow economics. The hard truth is that becoming a universally used product, in the vein of Google, does not constitute a monopoly. Unless the DOJ plans to sue Band Aid, Kleenex, or Xerox, the Google case displays a clear anti-tech political bias at the heart of today’s antitrust champions. With consumers already turning their attention away from traditional search engines, and toward the most interactive capabilities of artificial intelligence, maybe the DOJ and Khan can find a new bone to pick.
