Every possible way to destroy Google’s search monopoly

After U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google has a monopoly in two markets — general search and general text advertising — everyone is wondering how Google could be forced to change its search operations.

The judge specifically ruled that Google’s exclusive deals with browser and device developers secured Google’s monopoly. These so-called standard agreements directed the majority of online searches to Google’s search engine results pages (SERPs), where results sat among the text ads that had long generated the bulk of Google’s revenue.

During the trial, Mehta noted in his ruling, it was estimated that if Google lost its core standard agreement with Apple, Google would lose “approximately 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming it could retain some users without the standard agreement with Safari.”

Experts told Ars that disrupting these default deals is the most likely remedy the U.S. Justice Department will seek to restore competition in online search. Other remedies it could seek range from the least painful for Google (mandating choice screens on browsers and devices) to the most painful (forcing Google to pull out of Chrome or Android, where it has benefited itself).

But the remedies phase of the lawsuit may have to wait until after Google’s appeal, which experts said could take years before any remedies are ever presented in court. Whether Google can succeed in appealing the ruling is currently under debate, with anti-monopoly advocates calling Mehta’s ruling “rock solid” and critics suggesting the ruling’s novel take on antitrust law is open to attack.

Google declined Ars’ request for comment on what appropriate action or plan to appeal.

Earlier, Google’s president of Global Affairs, Kent Walker, confirmed in a statement that the tech giant would appeal the ruling, saying the court found that “Google is the highest-quality search engine in the industry, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,” that Google “has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,” “continues to innovate in search,” and that “Apple and Mozilla occasionally compare Google’s search quality to that of its rivals and conclude that Google’s is better.”

“Given this, and that people are increasingly seeking information in more ways than ever, we plan to appeal,” Walker said. “As this process continues, we will continue to focus on building products that people find useful and easy to use.”

But Mehta found that Google used its outsized influence in the search industry to block rivals by locking in browsers and devices in agreements that ensured all searches went to Google SERPs. None of the pro-competitive advantages Google claimed justified the exclusive deals, Mehta was convinced, ruling that “importantly” Google “exercised its monopoly power by charging supra-competitive prices for general search text ads”—and thus earned “monopoly profits.”

While experts believe the appeals process will delay the lawsuit’s resolution of remedies, Google appears to believe Mehta could rule on potential remedies before Google can move forward with its appeal. Walker told Google employees that a ruling on remedies could come in the coming months, The Wall Street Journal reported. Ars will continue to monitor that timeline.

As the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Google’s search engine division drags on, reports have long suggested that a loss for Google could change the way nearly the entire world searches the Internet.

Adam Epstein, the president and co-CEO of adMarketplace, which bills itself as “the largest consumer search technology company outside of Google and Bing,” told Ars that innovations in search could result in a broader landscape of more dynamic search experiences that draw from sources outside of Google and allow searchers to bypass Google’s SERPs entirely. If that happens, Google’s ubiquitous search experience of today could become a distant memory in the years ahead.

“By the end of this decade, visiting a search results page will seem outdated,” Epstein predicted. “The court’s decision sets the stage for a remedy that will dramatically improve the search experience for everyone connected to the Web. The era of innovation in search is upon us.”

The Justice Department has not yet discussed at length possible remedies it plans to pursue, but Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division, welcomed the ruling.

“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” Kanter said. “It paves the way for innovation for future generations and protects access to information for all Americans.”