MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
What's ahead for Google and for all of us used to Googling any and everything now that Google has lost a major antitrust lawsuit? And given that this was far from the only antitrust case the Justice Department has been pursuing against Big Tech, what might this week's ruling mean for other tech giants? Well, to take on those questions, we're going to bring in Rebecca Allensworth, professor at Vanderbilt Law School where she teaches antitrust law. Professor Allensworth, welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.
REBECCA ALLENSWORTH: Thanks for having me.
KELLY: This is being described, as you know, as the biggest monopoly case in 20-plus years. In a nutshell, the judge ruled that Google illegally abused its monopoly power when it made contracts with Apple, with Samsung to ensure search dominance. What is your biggest takeaway?
ALLENSWORTH: Well, this decision is really seismic. It's huge. I would say the thing that really I find so striking about this case is what he had to say about innovation. You know, for years, the tech companies have been beating this drum...
KELLY: This is Judge Amit Mehta. Go on.
ALLENSWORTH: Yeah, Judge Mehta. So if - you know, they've been beating this drum saying if you use antitrust against us, we're going to stop innovating. You know, this is harmful to innovation if you tie our hands and look at all these great innovative products we've brought you. Why would you want to stop us now? And the judge kind of puts this on its head a little bit and says, you know, it's not antitrust enforcement that's stifling innovation, but it's actually the monopolists. And appropriately used antitrust enforcement like this lawsuit can actually enhance innovation. So that's an argument I think we really needed to hear in this current environment where the little guys and the little competitors are getting squashed by these big monopolies.
KELLY: I'm curious how influential was the playbook that the government had written from the late '90s, the Microsoft litigation. How helpful was that in helping to steer this case?
ALLENSWORTH: Oh, hugely. I mean, the DOJ framed their whole argument very carefully on the Microsoft theory. And the judge in this decision followed it to a T. And that's why I think a fair reading of the case is that the government got almost everything that it wanted, and that was to bring that Microsoft case back up into 2024 and to sort of redefine competition on platform markets today.
KELLY: So when you told me you see this ruling as being seismic, being huge, that's in what sense - in terms of how other companies may behave going forward?
ALLENSWORTH: I see this as a seismic shift in the law, and, you know, as a law professor, of course, that's what I'm sort of most interested in. You know, in the late '70s, there was this big change in the way that courts looked at antitrust cases. And it happened case by case, and it happened over time. And looking back, it looks like it happened suddenly. But it really did take many cases in the '70s and '80s to bring about this change that we lived with for about 40 years, this is laissez-faire period of antitrust law. And what I think is really kind of remarkable about this case is not so much what it's going to mean for Google, but what it says about the idea that antitrust law can be brought to bear against competitive problems of today and the possibility that that tide is shifting as it did in the late '70s - in a different direction but shifting back.
KELLY: That's interesting because I was going to ask you whether current antitrust laws can meet the moment - laws you're describing that were evolving in the '70s and '80s, you know, when tech looked totally different than it does today.
ALLENSWORTH: That's right. And going back even further, the statute was passed in 1890 in a totally different set of markets. And I think the answer to the question of, you know, can it work today? The answer is yes.
KELLY: OK. To the other cases then - there is another case against Google, that one's to do with ad technology. The government is also pursuing lawsuits against Meta, against Amazon, against Apple. What might this Google ruling mean for those other cases?
ALLENSWORTH: So yeah, as you said, there's five major monopolization cases going against the Big Tech companies right now, and this is the first one to go to trial. I think the judges in the other cases will be looking to this case. It won't be precedential, but it will be influential. And I think there's a couple kind of breadcrumbs, I call them, that I think the judge left in this case. So one is the idea that you don't have to have econometric data to define a market. This has been an obstacle that a lot of judges have thrown up for antitrust plaintiffs over the last 40 years - that you have to have a model, you have to have an economist, and you have to have data to prove a market. And if you don't prove a market, by the way, you know, you don't win your monopolization case. So this case very squarely says, no, you can use common sense, regular indicators of what a market is. I think this is going to be really important, especially in the Meta case where market definition is really in play.
KELLY: Rebecca Allensworth teaches antitrust law at Vanderbilt Law School. Thank you so much.
ALLENSWORTH: Thank you.
KELLY: And a final note, Google is a funder of NPR. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
