Google Really Doesn't Want to Be Here

If there's something that Google wants you to know, it's that the defendant in the United States' most significant antitrust trial in 25 years is not a search monopoly established through unfair, anti-competitive means--and if people get that impression, it's only because all the other search engines suck. Google is, literally, just built different. Over the first week of U.S. et al. v. Google--a suit initially filed by the U.S. Department of Justice along with more than a dozen state attorneys general in 2020--Google's lawyers put out myriad opening arguments to convince the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the iconic company is not what the government accuses it of being: a search giant that reached and then stayed atop its pedestal by unfairly colluding with other tech companies to ensure its dominance. The DOJ alleges that Google intentionally crowded out search-engine competitors in order to control the sector, allowing it to overcharge advertisers, stifle the reach of other search sites, and leave consumers with no choice but to use Google's steadily degrading product. Judge Amit P. Mehta will decide, over the course of the next 10 weeks, whether the government's argument passes muster--or if Google is right that it should not be held liable under antitrust law.