Antitrust Remedies Against Google Would Punish Consumers, Not Protect Them
In 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found that Google’s agreements with Apple and other companies to be the default search engine on various smartphones and tablets violated antitrust laws. This case is now in its remedies phase, meaning a court is considering various proposals from both sides on necessary changes to respond to the violations.
But if the government gets its way, consumers will be the ones to lose out, and the government will be far more involved in dictating the marketplace. To put it bluntly, the proposed punishment does not fit the crime.
For one, predicting when and how true disruption will occur is rarely possible. Just in the months since the trial, AI and AI-related search products are being built into products such as the next generation of iPhones, raising questions about Mehta’s declaration that they were not true competitors in the same market. Looking for the “next Google” may miss the true changes in how consumers experience technology, and innovation is often our best competition policy.
While the decision of this case may have led to headlines saying that Google was declared a monopoly, the decision around antitrust is not about the company’s status as a whole but about one particular type of business agreement the company entered into.
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
