States file third antitrust lawsuit against Google focused on search

Credit: Getty Images

A group of more than 30 states have filed a third antitrust lawsuit against Google, this time focusing on the design of the company's search engine and its tactics to maintain market dominance.

The complaint, lodged in the D.C. District Court on Thursday, accuses Google's of anticompetitive behavior with its search engine business, the New York Times reported. That includes allegedly designing the search engine in a way that pushes out smaller, more specialized rivals.

Along with downplaying third-party websites, the state prosecutors also accuse Google of using exclusive deals — like the one with Apple — to prioritize its search engine over rivals like DuckDuckGo.

Those suppressive tactics have allowed Google to achieve its nearly 90% market dominance in search, making it impossible for smaller competitors to grow into serious threats, the lawsuit claims.

All in all, 38 states signed onto the bipartisan complaint, which was led by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson. Other states include New York, Utah, Alaska, and Iowa.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a separate complaint that focused on Google's advertising technology business. It also follows a Department of Justice lawsuit, also centered around search, that was levied in October.

There has been increasing scrutiny of technology giants in recent years, both in the U.S. and abroad. On Dec. 9, nearly every state in the U.S. and the FTC filed two separate lawsuits accusing Facebook of anti-competitive behavior.

Earlier in 2020, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee completed a yearlong investigation into the market power of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. The results of that investigation, released in an October report, recommended sweeping changes to antitrust law.

Follow AppleInsider on Google News

9 Comments

cornchip 1939 comments · 11 Years

About 3 years ago

I’m no expert, but I feel like the real issue is, and maybe it was said in so many words above, that websites are incentivized to optimize for Google and no other search platform. Credit to G for developing all this technology; it’s very good.

However I feel like the real solution is not for the government to come in and make a bunch of lame rules but maybe everyone could just gang up on them Apple style, and come up with an internet search standards body that comes up with standards that web developers optimize for. Google can join if they want. Rather than Google being the sole gatekeeper of internet SEO.

Does that make any sense? Is it possible? Is it already being done and I have no clue what I’m blathering on about?

jdw 1349 comments · 18 Years

About 3 years ago

cornchip said:

I feel like the real solution is not for the government to come in and make a bunch of lame rules...

Exactly.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
—Ronald Reagan

lkrupp 10521 comments · 19 Years

About 3 years ago

Safari 14.0.2 provides 5 choices for search engines and I’ve tried all of them. None of them come close to Google’s algorithms. People here tout DuckDuckGo or the new Ecosia. They stink IMHO.

22july2013 3580 comments · 11 Years

About 3 years ago

I'm not sure that if claims above are proof of any crime, but I am angry with Google for other reasons. I am angry at Google for making money off of other people's copyrighted material. How does Google get away with that? They index everything on the internet, including things that are written in order to make money (like newspapers) and then display the results of a search, sometimes with paid ads, thereby making money off of someone else's content.

For example, let's say I want to find out the name of the guy who killed John F Kennedy. So I go to Google's search page and type: Who killed John F Kennedy. The results come back, and I can see the name Lee Harvey Oswald on the first result returned. I don't even have to click on the first link to find the answer to my question. But if I do click on it, I visit the site HISTORY.COM and on the page with the answer are four ads for E.D. products. I never have to view the ads because Google has copied the vital information onto their own computers which I can see before visiting the website. Essentially, Google has robbed the site it has indexed of ad revenue. Although in this case there was no ad on the Google search results itself (some searches DO return ads, which are paid to Google instead of to the website owner Google copied the data from.)

I'm not saying that copyright law is up to date with technology. I may be inclined to agree to changes in copyright laws to allow indexing like Google does. But the way I read copyright laws now, Google is breaking the letter and spirit of the law.

I'm not American, so the following doesn't apply to me personally, here's what the US Constitution says:

[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

And here's what US Federal Law says about infringement: (it's probably similar in most countries)

Copyright infringement occurs when someone violates one of the exclusive rights listed in 17 USC 106. Commonly, this involves someone creating or distributing a "copy" of a protected work that is "substantially similar" to the original version.

And I think it's obvious that when Google reproduces other websites' information in their search results, they are infringing copyright. Even without putting ads on the result, they are violating that law. When Google told me that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy, they robbed HISTORY.COM from the ad revenue that I would have generated if I had clicked on the search result myself. And yet I have never heard a single person or read a single website that complains about this behaviour, either by Google or any other search engine. What Google is doing probably should be made legal, with restrictions, but right now it's illegal.