The US Google Search Antitrust Case: a Roadmap for Latin American Agencies and Policymakers?

What potential lessons can competition policymakers in Latin America take from the U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) Google Search case? The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) convened scholars and experts from across the region to explore that question at a recent event in Lima, Peru, held in collaboration with the law faculty of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Hosted by ICLE Senior Scholar Mario Zúñiga, the discussion featured such experts as Alejandro Falla, a partner with the Spanish and Peruvian law firm Bullard Falla Ezcurra+, and Shantal Perez, a senior economist with Peru’s Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (INDECOPI). 

The session examined various aspects of the Google Search case, including complex questions surrounding relevant markets, alleged monopoly power, and the appropriate standard of liability. Speakers and participants debated the DOJ’s proposed remedies and the broader challenges of applying traditional antitrust frameworks to rapidly evolving digital markets. 

The consensus leaned toward a cautious approach, emphasizing the need for context-specific analysis, rather than a one-size-fits-all regulatory strategy.

Five Takeaways

• Google’s Dominant Position Questioned: Despite the case’s premise, participants questioned whether Google’s status as a “monopoly” search engine remains valid, given the rise of AI-driven search tools and the dynamic nature of digital markets, raising doubts about the suitability of broad remedies.
• Standard of Proof Debated: There was disagreement regarding U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s application of the “reasonably capable of” standard for exclusionary effects, with a majority advocating for a stricter “but-for” causation standard.
• Remedies Deemed Excessive: Even if liability were confirmed, there was agreement that the DOJ’s proposed remedies are disproportionate and could harm both competition and consumers, suggesting that behavioral remedies would be more appropriate if any intervention is necessary.
• Uncertain Impact on Latin America: The Google case’s implications for Latin America are still unclear, particularly given that it remains under appeal. Any future antitrust actions taken in the region against Google or other major digital platforms should be fact-specific and avoid treating the outcome of the U.S. case as a universal precedent.
• Caution in Digital-Market Intervention: Given the fast-moving and often competitive nature of digital markets, intervention by competition authorities in Latin America should not be a priority. Deregulation to lower entry barriers and focusing on cartels in critical sectors were suggested as more impactful approaches.