Trump and Biden Tried to Break Up Google. Now, They’ve Both Failed
ICLE President Geoffrey A. Manne is quoted in this Reason article on a federal judge’s decision to reject the proposed breakup of Google in the search monopoly case, calling it a win for consumer welfare and market competition. Read the full article here.
Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, says that Mehta’s refusal to enjoin Google from making payments for search access is “entirely borne out of adherence to a consumer-welfare-focused antitrust and rejection of the ‘big is bad’ vision underlying the [Justice Department’s] proposed remedies.” Likewise, Mehta’s rejection of the choice screen remedy, which would’ve required users to choose their device’s default search engine on first use and again every year thereafter, “recognized that judicial micromanagement of product design would not be beneficial for innovation or consumer welfare in the long run,” says Manne.
In his decision, Mehta rightly recognized that Google’s domination of the search engine market was not solely due to unlawful, anticompetitive behavior but in large part to its “best-in-class search quality, consistent innovations, investment in human capital, strategic foresight, and brand recognition.” Mehta’s refusal to break up Google has been called “a green light for monopolization to every big business” by some antitrust crusaders. Manne has another take; he says Mehta’s decision is “definitely a win for consumer welfare over the vision of antitrust espoused by the [Justice Department’s] proposed remedies.”