U.S. v. Google

from The New York Times I'm Sabrina. tavernisi and this is the daily. [Music]. for years the government has been trying. to rein in big Tech pursuing some of the. biggest and most powerful companies on. the internet. this week the government takes on one of. those companies in the first Monopoly. trial of the internet era today.

[Music]. my colleague David McCabe on the. government's case against Google. and what it might mean for the future. [Music]. it's Monday September 11th. so David this week in a federal court in. Washington DC the justice department is. making its case against Google what's. this all about. the government has become increasingly.

obsessed with this question of whether. the tech Giants including Google got so. big by breaking laws that were designed. to reign in corporations more than a. century ago. and by doing that have they hurt. consumers have they hurt other companies. smaller companies that are coming up. with innovative ideas. and this week government lawyers are. going to walk into a courtroom and begin. to make the case that Google has broken. the law. and this is the first time the justice. department is trying to do this with a. Tech Giant in decades the last time was.

when they took Microsoft to court in. 1998 and then the tech industry changed. the internet created these giant. companies that built Big platforms for. how we access information and culture. and communicate and Google is probably. more emblematic of that era of the. internet than any other company it same. literally became a verb synonymous with. what it does indeed and this case isn't. just going to be about the last era of.

Technology it's also going to be about. the next era of Technology because. hanging over this case are developments. like artificial intelligence and. questions about whether companies like. Google. are poised because they have been so. dominant to also dominate the next era. of technology so what is the actual case. here I mean what exactly is the. government's argument here about how. Google is hurting consumers I mean. usually you think you know monopolies. are bad because they raise consumer.

prices but Google of course is free. you're right and that makes this case. unusual but the government says that. basically three groups of people are. being harmed here that Google has this. Monopoly over online search and. crucially that it's illegally abused at. Monopoly first to shut out its Rivals. think startups or even companies like. Microsoft that make rival search engines. and that that's led to this absence of. choice that when people go to search. that Google's really the main clear. option for them to use and the.

adjustment says that is her to other. groups of people it is her advertisers. who do pay to use Google's advertising. services that Google is able because. they don't have much of a choice to. charge them potentially higher prices. and then the justice department is also. saying that consumers you and me who do. use Google for free have been hurt in. ways that can't necessarily be. Quantified by price that they're. potentially hurt when it comes to the. quality of search results and that. they're potentially hurt when it comes. to the policies that Google is able to.

impose upon them Google of course. Hoover's up personal data from anyone. who uses the service in order to Target. advertisements because that's how they. make money and the justice department is. saying that one of the reasons they're. able to sew aggressively collect the. personal data of their users is because. they have all of this power and there. aren't that many other choices if you. want to use Google and you're concerned. about your privacy. so basically they're saying that Google. has kind of blotted out other companies.

that could be providing the marketplace. with products that would ultimately be. better for us like taking away our. choice essentially. that's exactly right and it gets at the. core of what these antitrust laws are. about because the government believes. that if there's a Fair competition on. the merits that consumers end up with. more choice they end up with better. products they end up paying less money. for products because companies are. incentivized right to offer something. better to Consumers to treat other.

people in the marketplace fairly it's. actually not illegal in the United. States to Simply have a monopoly if. consumers were just choosing Google. because they had access to a number of. really good options and they just. thought Google was the best and Google. had a monopoly as a result that would be. fine under the law what is illegal in. the United States is getting that. Monopoly or keeping that Monopoly. by illegally excluding your competitors.

and that is exactly what the government. says Google has done here in other words. that Google is dominant not because they. offer the best product but because they. used their weight and their dominance to. suppress their competitors okay so walk. me through what the government is. alleging that Google did to suppress. competition. so to understand the core of the. government's case it's helpful to think. about your smartphone okay. so I have an iPhone often when I'm. searching for information I open the. browser on my iPhone it's the default. browser the one that Apple makes is.

called safari and I I open Safari and. you know there's that little bar at the. top of the browser right where you know. you usually write in mitimes.com right I. just search I put my search query there. and that by default goes to Google. actions has thrown a lot of different. smartphones and the reason why is that. Google has these contracts these. agreements with apple with Mozilla which. makes Firefox with people who make. smartphones even with wireless carriers. to be in different ways the default.

search engine on the smartphone like you. don't have to decide which search engine. you use right it's just there it's. Google by default it's Google and what. the Justice form it says is that this. web of contracts which consumers right. like don't think about definitely not. these contracts actually were an illegal. means of maintaining its power in search. because they so powerfully. Drive consumers to use Google rather.

than other search engines. [Music]. how exactly did Google come to be this. default search engine in so many other. products that aren't Google products. like walk me through what they did to. get these deals. first of all they pay billions of. dollars these deals are thought to be. incredibly valuable and there's a number. of different ways that this works the.

most prominent at the trial will. probably be its agreements with apple. and Mozilla because so many people use. their browser Apple of course is its own. giant company with a big profile right. but Google also has these other. agreements with smartphone makers that. use its Android operating system okay to. be basically pre-installed as an app on. those phones. so maybe you know some phones have a. search bar on the home screen. That Could by default be Google so there.

are a lot of different ways that people. search across their mobile devices but. what the government is alleging is that. in all these cases whether it's your. browser whether it's an app on the home. screen of your smartphone that Google. has used these contracts to basically. lock up that real estate if you think. about it as like the best real estate on. Main Street that they have locked up. that real estate using these contracts. Google has that fancy corner office. Google has every one of those stores the. ones that like you want to just walk.

into exactly and the one that it's. importantly easiest to walk into right. that like it's the one next to your. parking spot so it's the it's the one. you're most likely to go into because. it's right there. and that a lot of consumers when they. search for information they just go with. the default and as a result these. agreements the justice department has. said are like by far the best way to get. search queries. okay but David hold on like why should I. care whether Google is the default.

search engine on my phone I mean you. know just speaking for myself here but. like in general I like Google search. engine. and I'd imagine a lot of other people. feel the same way so how does this move. by Google represent the harm to me like. Jane consumer that the government is. alleging this is where we get back to. that idea of choice. so the justice department says that. there's a really pernicious cycle at. play here that Google has so many users. that it's able to collect more data than.

anyone else it competes with to make its. search results better. and that because it can make its search. results better than anybody else that. users come to Google even more often. continuing the cycle and what the. justice department is saying is that. these agreements to make Google the. default on a smartphone. put that process like on speed on. overdrive and only contribute to. increasing Google's scale and size which. in turn. it's able to use to be more valuable to.

users and elbow out competitors. so basically they're the default on all. of our products we use it Without Really. choosing or thinking about it and the. fact that we all use it means that their. dominance is Multiplied right like. exponentially like as you say it puts it. on speed making it harder and harder for. other companies to compete with them. that's right that's exactly what the. justice department is arguing here. they're saying that because Google has.

this compounded dominance that's in part. the results of agreements that they say. break the law that has allowed them to. suppress other competitors that might. actually offer consumers options that. they want more than Google so take for. example is a company called DuckDuckGo. and they make a search engine that's. whole sort of value proposition. is that it collects less data than. Google does about them now the justice. department is arguing that companies. like DuckDuckGo could offer benefits to.

Consumers could offer choices to. Consumers about how much their data is. collected. but that that gets short-circuited by. this cycle of dominance Juiced by. illegal agreements that Google has. engaged in got it so what does Google. say to all of this I mean what do you. expect its defense to be based on your. reporting so do you remember how you. said that you like using Google people. like using Google that you like because. the products good. that is Google's defense okay.

that people who use Google choose Google. because they find it helpful not because. they've used illegal agreements to force. their way to the front of the line. we're just good guys yeah that they are. winning because they've made the best. product and that it's a product that. people find helpful that people choose. to come to Google because it's a high. quality product and that's why these. companies Apple Samsung Mozilla choose.

to partner with Google to make the. search engine the default because Google. says they're the best but they also say. that people do have other choices that. they can change the default search. engines with you know only a few Taps on. their smartphone so that these. agreements at the heart of the case. aren't even exclusive at all and they. say that they're not even as dominant as. doj claims in the first place how's that. so the justice department says that. Google has around a 90 market share when.

you define their competition as what is. called General search so that means like. Bing or DuckDuckGo basically doj says. One-Stop shop search engines where you. might go for a whole variety of things. but Google is saying we have a smaller. share of the search engine Market. because we compete not just with the. One-Stop shops but we compete with. Amazon when it comes to searching for a. product online we compete with Tick Tock. or Reddit when it comes to answering. other queries we compete with Spotify or.

chatgpt so the dust storm it basically. says Google is a big fish in a small. pond and Google says it's not a pond. it's a giant ocean Google's saying you. got the wrong body of water exactly yeah. Google is saying you're looking at the. wrong Universe right and if the judge. comes to agree with that idea it's going. to be really hard for the justice. department to make its case. because the judge in this trial first. has to decide is Google a monopoly here.

at all do they have Monopoly power and. that will hinge on how big or small the. world of competitors it has is right if. you're a small dot in a big fee of. competitors it's a lot harder to have. Monopoly power than if you are the same. size dot in a tiny puddle of competitors. right and once the judge figures out. where he falls on that question. if Google does have Monopoly power then. he'll have to figure out did these. agreements break the law did they step.

over the line from aggressive growth in. a business to an illegal and. unreasonable restraint on its. competition in other words did they kind. of cheat their way to the front of the. pack. so in no way is the doj's case a slam. dunk it's going to be tough it's gonna. be tough and you know the cases are. significant there are millions of. documents that have been turned over as. part of the evidence process there are.

going to be witnesses that include. corporate Executives from Google but. also from competitors from these. companies that it signs agreements with. there's going to be testimony from. economists who get paid sometimes as. much as lawyers in these cases to. provide expert analysis to a judge and. the judge in this case is going to have. to look at all of that and figure out. where to draw the line on does Google. have the power that the justice. department says it does and did they. step over into illegal territory in how.

they maintained it. and what's really new about this is that. it's the first time they've tried to. bring one of these cases in this era of. the modern internet platforms Google. Meadow which owns Facebook WhatsApp and. Instagram Amazon Apple they all operate. big online platforms and the government. has never afford had a trial like this. where they've aired out their concerned. about how those platforms got so.

powerful in public and in the kind of. minute detail that we'll see over the. next 10 weeks so the judge is going to. have to roll one way or another. but whether Google wins or the justice. department wins it's going to be a big. deal for the technology industry. we'll be right back. [Music]. so David this is a big and novel case. and totally unclear what the outcome is.

going to be let's talk about the. possible scenarios here so what would it. mean if the judge sides with Google. yeah so the devil will be in the details. of his ruling it's a complex case he's. going to have to make a lot of. individual calls that will add up to a. decision but broadly I think there are. sort of two lenses through which a. Google Victory would be viewed the first. is from sort of a Silicon Valley. perspective if the judge rules for.

Google it's possible that he'll find. that these harms that doj has described. that they say happened as a result of. Google's kind of rapacious and illegal. growth that those harms weren't there. and that could send a message to Google. and other Silicon Valley companies that. this increased government oversight in. recent years is is really more spark. than bite and that gets us to the second. lens which is how does Washington view a. Google victory depending if Google wins. one thing you may hear in Washington.

from people who are skeptical of the. tech companies is that it proves that. these antitrust laws which have been. interpreted in the last several decades. as being very narrowly focused on. instances where consumers are harmed. particularly through price. that that interpretation of these laws. really is not suited to taking on. Silicon Valley. and that that understanding of the law. fails to capture. potential ways that consumers might be. harmed when it comes to the collection.

of their data the quality of the product. they use and the choices they have. available to them right we live in a. data world now and that's essentially. the currency that's exactly right we are. now in an economy where some of the. biggest and most prominent companies. give their product to Consumers for free. but collect a lot of their personal data. and the question is can the laws handle. that. okay so what about the other side of. things so say the government wins the. case what happens to Google.

so that is the big question and it's one. that the judge won't even consider. until he's decided whether or not Google. has broken the law but if he does find. the Google broke law that doj was right. if he rules in the government's favor. there are a couple different routes that. the government has traditionally taken. to try and address concerns about. corporations that have broken antitrust. laws. the most radical option available to a. judge is breaking up a company like.

actually breaking up Google. well this has happened before so in the. 80s a t agreed to break itself up into. seven Regional companies. under pressure from the justice. department they were known as Ma Bell. these companies were known as the baby. bells and there are people who really. believe that that was successful in. introducing competition to what had been. an extremely concentrated phone business. but like is that the right analogy I. mean that was a phone company with.

regional carriers this is an internet. company like is that Apples to Apples. it's not and Google search business. isn't necessarily something you could. split up like at T like standard oil at. the turn of the century along Regional. lines and it will be a tough question. for the court of how you would use a. kind of structural change. in order to stop the behavior and harms. that the justice department has. identified in its lawsuit okay so what's. the other potential fix in the event.

that the government wins. so a court could also basically demand. that Google change its Behavior so the. justice department has not said a lot. about what kind of fixes they want in. this case but they have asked the court. to stop Google from just doing the. things it describes in the lawsuit so. that could mean new restrictions on the. kinds of agreements that Google can. enter to be these default search. providers on a smartphone meaning those.

agreements with apple and with other. companies the ones that give Google that. Prime real estate right next to the. parking spot those would either. disappear or change to make competition. more fair that's exactly right and one. other thing that's been tried in Europe. is presenting some smartphone users with. a screen that allows them to choose. their search engine so there's not the. same kind of hard and fast default okay. but if all of this boils down to just a. few more clicks on a setup screen like.

what was it all for I mean does it. really solve what the government was. saying is at issue here which is Tech is. too big and by definition that is a. problem. ultimately the question will be after. all the legal wrangling is done after. the judge decides on a fix in this case. did it change Google's Behavior. did it change the way they approached. building their business and the stakes. for that become a lot bigger when you. think about the future and especially. when you think about.

the future of artificial intelligence. where Google is already a major player. what do you mean explain that. so Google has a lot of information. Google search is one of the biggest. compendiums of information on the planet. and information is like rocket fuel for. artificial intelligence. so the question is does their dominance. in search lead to potential future. dominance in artificial intelligence.

and does the courts fix if it rules in. favor of the justice department Ripple. outward to the rest of the industry does. it make Silicon Valley more competitive. at a time when companies across Silicon. Valley are in this heating up battle to. define the next era of the internet. foreign. [Music]. David thank you thank you. [Music].

we'll be right back. [Music]. here's what else you need to know over. the weekend a powerful earthquake struck. Morocco killing more than 2 000 people. and setting off frantic rescue efforts. through Rubble strewn city streets and.

remote rural areas. the hardest hit settlements were in the. high Atlas Mountains outside the city of. Marrakesh where the few roads were. blocked by debris. the death toll was expected to rise. because many homes in the area are made. of mud bricks a construction method. highly vulnerable to earthquakes. the Quake which had a magnitude of 6.8. on the Richter Scale was the strongest. to hit the area in a century. and a pair of Champions were crowned at.

the U.S Open tennis major over the. weekend one a prodigy announcing her. arrival on the scene and the other an. all-time great cementing his status in. the record books in the women's Final on. Sunday nineteen-year-old American Coco. golf chased and lunged toward the ball. rattling Arena sabalenka of Belarus and. sending Arthur Ashe Stadium in Queens. into a state of delirium. the remarkable win established golf as.

the new face of women's tennis in. America meanwhile Novak Djokovic. solidified his reputation as the. greatest player of the modern era by. defeating Daniel Medvedev of Russia in. the men's singles final. the win the 24th major title of. djokovic's career moves him one past the. record held by Serena Williams for the. most career single grand slams.

[Music]. today's episode was produced by Olivia. Nat Moosh zadie Diana Nguyen and Shannon. Lynn it was edited by Mark George with. help from Paige cowett contains original. music by Dan Powell Alicia and Marian. Lozano and was engineered by Alyssa. Moxley our theme music is by Jim. brunberg and Ben Lansford of wonderly. [Music]. that's it for the Daily I'm Sabrina.

tavernice. see you tomorrow. [Music].