There’s no question that Google dominates the world of internet search. But in attempting to open up this critical industry to more competition, the government is pursuing a cure worse than the disease. If the government is successful at breaking up Google, history tells us that consumers and many enterprises tied to our vast and flourishing internet may ultimately pay a price.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of the D.C. Federal District Court ruled earlier this year that Google, which the Justice Department claims controls over 90 percent of online search, illegally maintained a monopoly by paying manufacturers such as Apple to make Google the default search engine on their products. Last week, the Justice Department and a group of states presented the judge with a plethora of proposed remedies. Not only should Google be required to stop paying others for default status, it must also sell Chrome, its popular web browser. It would also be barred from making itself the default search engine on its own products and disallowed from preferring its own products in search results.
The entire point of antitrust law is to promote competitive markets. Antitrust remedies are not designed to punish a wrongdoer but rather to correct the effects of a monopoly. The test for a successful remedy is whether the market becomes more competitive, with higher output or a better experience for consumers.