## Facts

- The United States and multiple states sued Google LLC under § 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging unlawful maintenance of monopoly power through search distribution agreements.
- The cases were consolidated and tried in a bench trial on liability from September to November 2023.
- Google operated the dominant general search engine in the United States, with roughly 90% share of general search services (higher on mobile) and a correspondingly dominant position in general search text advertising.
- Users access search through multiple distribution points, including browsers (e.g., Safari, Chrome), Android search widgets, the Google Search app, and Google’s webpage.
- Search advertising tied to general search queries generated substantial revenues, and query volume was strongly linked to advertising performance.
- Plaintiffs challenged Google’s contracts with key distribution partners (including browser providers, mobile device manufacturers, and carriers) that secured Google as the default search option and included revenue-sharing and placement terms that were exclusive or near-exclusive in effect.
- The court found that default placement significantly influences user behavior because users rarely switch away from defaults, making default status a critical input to scale in search.
- The court determined that, in the aggregate, Google’s distribution arrangements substantially limited rivals’ access to effective search distribution channels, constraining rivals’ ability to obtain query volume needed to improve quality and compete.

## Issues

1. Whether “general search services” and “general search text advertising” are relevant antitrust product markets.
2. Whether Google possessed monopoly power in those markets.
3. Whether Google’s default distribution agreements and related contractual restrictions constituted exclusionary conduct, rather than competition on the merits, under Sherman Act § 2.
4. What causation standard applies to § 2 monopoly-maintenance claims and whether the challenged conduct sufficiently contributed to maintaining Google’s monopolies and causing anticompetitive effects.
5. Whether Google proved procompetitive justifications that outweighed any anticompetitive harms.

## Decision

- The court held that general search services and general search text advertising are relevant product markets.
- The court found Google possessed monopoly power in both markets, supported by dominant market shares and durable competitive advantages and barriers to entry.
- The court concluded Google violated Sherman Act § 2 by unlawfully maintaining monopolies in both markets through a pattern of exclusionary default distribution agreements and related practices.
- The court rejected a strict but-for causation requirement and found it sufficient that Google’s conduct significantly contributed to the maintenance of monopoly power and anticompetitive harm.
- The court determined Google’s asserted quality, efficiency, and integration justifications did not outweigh the anticompetitive effects and that the challenged restraints exceeded what was reasonably necessary to achieve legitimate objectives.
- The court entered liability findings and proceeded to a later remedies phase.

## Legal Principles

- A firm does not violate Sherman Act § 2 merely by possessing monopoly power; liability requires conduct that produces anticompetitive effects by suppressing competition.
- Relevant product markets may be defined around distinct services and advertising products when other forms are not reasonable substitutes due to differences in function, targeting, and user intent.
- Exclusive or de facto exclusive default distribution arrangements can be exclusionary where default status is a key competitive input and the agreements substantially foreclose rivals from effective channels needed to achieve scale.
- In § 2 monopoly-maintenance cases, plaintiffs need not always prove a precise but-for market outcome; liability may be shown where the challenged conduct materially and significantly contributed to maintaining monopoly power and causing anticompetitive effects.
- Procompetitive justifications must be supported and must outweigh anticompetitive harms; asserted integration or efficiency rationales do not excuse restrictive terms that are not reasonably necessary and that materially disadvantage rivals.

## Conclusion

The court found Google liable under Sherman Act § 2 for unlawfully maintaining monopolies in general search services and general search text advertising by using default distribution agreements that substantially foreclosed rivals from key access points, significantly contributing to durable monopoly power and anticompetitive harm, without offsetting justifications.


United States v. Google LLC, Nos. 20-cv-3010 (APM), 20-cv-3715 (APM) (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2024)