Kibler Fowler & Cave LLP’s Post

Google’s Legal Quagmire & Financial Risk Coming Home to Roost?⚠️⛔️💰😳⚠️ Globe & Mail - Matthew Barakat: Google, U.S. Justice Department make final arguments about whether search engine is a monopoly. Google’s pre-eminence as an internet search engine is an illegal monopoly propped up by more than $20 billion spent each year by the tech giant to lock out competition, Justice Department lawyers argued at the closings of a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit. 
Google, on the other hand, maintains that its ubiquity flows from its excellence, and its ability to deliver results customers are looking for.
“It would be an unprecedented decision to punish a company for winning on the merits,” Google’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, said late Friday afternoon in summation of the company’s closing arguments. 
Justice Department lawyer Ken Dintzer told the judge that “today must be the day” for him to step in and stop Google’s monopolistic behaviour, which he likened to the tactics used by Microsoft two decades ago that prompted a similar antitrust battle.

The U.S. government, a coalition of states and Google all made their closing arguments Friday in the 10-week lawsuit to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who must now decide whether Google broke the law in maintaining a monopoly status as a search engine. 
Much of the case, the biggest antitrust trial in more than two decades, has revolved around how much Google derives its strength from contracts it has in place with companies like Apple to make Google the default search engine preloaded on cellphones and computers. 
At trial, evidence showed that Google spends more than $20 billion a year on such contracts. Justice Department lawyers have said the huge sum is indicative of how important it is for Google to make itself the default search engine and block competitors from getting a foothold. 
Google responds that customers could easily click away to other search engines if they wanted, but that consumers invariably prefer Google. Companies like Apple testified at trial that they partner with Google because they consider its search engine to be superior.
 https://lnkd.in/g6KaMp-F

"The Justice Department has spent three years over two presidential administrations building the case that Google illegally abused its power over online search to throttle competition. To defend itself, Google has enlisted hundreds of employees and three powerful law firms and spent millions of dollars on legal fees and lobbyists. On Tuesday, a judge in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will begin considering their arguments at a trial that cuts to the heart of a long-simmering question: Did today’s tech giants become dominant by breaking the law? The case — U.S. et al v. Google — is the federal government’s first monopoly trial of the modern internet era, as a generation of tech companies has come to wield immense influence over commerce, information, public discourse, entertainment and labor. The trial moves the antitrust battle against those companies to a new phase, shifting from challenging their mergers and acquisitions to more deeply examining the businesses that thrust them into power. Such a consequential case over tech power has not unfolded since the Justice Department took Microsoft to court in 1998 for antitrust violations. But since then, companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, have woven themselves into people’s lives to an even greater degree. Any ruling from the trial could have broad ripple effects, slowing down or potentially dismantling the largest internet companies after decades of unbridled growth. The stakes are particularly high for Google, the Silicon Valley company founded in 1998, which grew into a $1.7 trillion giant by becoming the first place people turned to online to search the web. The government has said in its complaint that it wants Google to change its monopolistic business practices, potentially pay damages and restructure itself. “This is a pivotal case and a moment to create precedents for these new platforms that lend themselves to real and durable market power,” said Laura Phillips-Sawyer, who teaches antitrust law at the University of Georgia School of Law. The case centers on whether Google illegally cemented its dominance and squashed competition by paying Apple and other companies to make its internet search engine the default on the iPhone as well as on other devices and platforms. In legal filings, the Justice Department has argued that Google maintained a monopoly through such agreements, making it harder for consumers to use other search engines. Google has said that its deals with Apple and others were not exclusive and that consumers could alter the default settings on their devices to choose alternative search engines. Google has amassed 90 percent of the search engine market in the United States and 91 percent globally, according to Similarweb, a data analysis firm. Fireworks are expected at the trial,"...

📢Google argues against US accusation of breaking antitrust law, says "quality kept its search on top":📢 ⭕ What the US has to say? 🛡 By defending its larger variety of popularity, Google has rebutted the US claim that it has broken antitrust law. ⭕ Justice Department - $10 Billion accusation: 🛡 In order to maintain its search engine's market share at almost 90%, the Justice Department has accused Alphabet's Google of paying $10 billion annually to device manufacturers like Apple, telecom providers like AT&T, and browser manufacturers like Mozilla. 🛡 Google, the world's largest search engine and advertising company, denied breaking the law to maintain its enormous market share, arguing that the US was incorrect and that unsatisfied consumers could switch search engines with "a few easy clicks." ⭕ More Search Options and Freedom to Access: 🛡 John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, stated that "Users today have more search options and more ways to access information online than ever before," and added that Google has won contests organised by Apple and Mozilla to determine the best search engines. ⭕ Series of Accusations: 🛡 Kenneth Dintzer of the Justice Department said that Google rigged online ad auctions to drive up rates for advertisers. 🛡 Dintzer claims that as a result of the lack of strong competition, Google innovated less and gave other issues, including privacy, less attention. 🛡 Dintzer added that the department had discovered proof that Google had taken precautions to safeguard information regarding payments it made to businesses like Apple. 🛡 The legal battle has significant ramifications for Big Tech, which has been accused of acquiring or suffocating small competitors but has largely escaped charges of violating antitrust law because the services the corporations offer to users are either free, as in the case of Google, or reasonably priced, as in the case of Amazon.com. ⭕ Previous Major Antitrust Cases: 🛡 Microsoft and AT&T both had prior significant antitrust trials that were filed in 1974 and 1998, respectively. The 1982 AT&T separation is credited with establishing the present cell phone market, while the conflict with Microsoft is said to have made room for Google and other internet companies. ⭕ What do you think? 💡I will now leave it up to you. Do you believe that the US is accusing Google falsely in order to topple the empire, as is well known, or is it true that small businesses are being wiped out by Google's monopolistic behaviour? Post your comments about it below💡👇 #google #antitrust #case #us #monopoly #linkedinnews #linkedinpost #linkedinforcreators #financewrapindia

Google's Antitrust Trial: Shaking the Core of Internet Dominance Google, the juggernaut of search engines, is under the legal spotlight, accused of employing shady tactics to maintain its position as the world's leading search engine. The U.S. Justice Department is spearheading the charge, asserting that Google's towering 90% market share was partly secured through hefty payments to giants like Apple, essentially monopolizing the default search engine spot on products such as iPhones. This trial, slated for a ten-week run, is set to hear testimonies from key figures, including Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The outcome has the potential to reshape not just Google, but the very landscape of the internet itself. Will it herald a new era, or will Google continue business as usual? Here's what I know so far. Google’s Defense: Market Dominance or Monopoly? Google defends its colossal 90% market share by claiming its superior product is the reason behind this dominance. However, the U.S. Justice Department alleges that the company's financial deals with tech giants like Apple conferred an unfair advantage, stifling competition. Allegations of Concealed Evidence The Justice Department attorney accused Google of hiding and destroying evidence, alleging that the company was aware it was violating antitrust laws. A chat message from CEO Pichai became a crucial exhibit, hinting at a deliberate attempt to keep conversations from being archived. Apple's Involvement and Cost of Default Status Revelations suggest Apple had initially intended to offer users a choice between Google and Yahoo as their search engine. However, Google allegedly demanded the default placement, backing it up with a significant annual payment, purportedly exceeding $10 billion. Google’s Monopoly and Search Engine Default Amidst the legal battle, Google's lawyer argued that forcing users to switch to what they termed as "inferior products" would not be good for competition. The discussion circled around whether Google's default status was a necessity or a stifling monopoly. Insights and What Lies Ahead The trial has exposed Google's internal dynamics, including strategies to maintain default status and compete against other search engines. The verdict, expected early next year, could redefine the search engine landscape, potentially altering the default status and opening doors for competitors. In a David vs. Goliath scenario, the U.S. and its state allies aim not for monetary compensation but a court order to curb alleged unfair practices. The ripple effects could be profound, from potentially splitting the tech behemoth to reshaping the dynamics of new markets, like AI. This trial represents a pivotal moment in the tech industry, akin to the landmark Microsoft case in 1998. 

America.gov of Antitrust & BigTech's CSAM-CYBER Epidemic: Internet.org Meta Platforms Inc.‘s latest salvo targeting the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is also the latest to challenge a federal agency’s enforcement actions by questioning the constitutionality of its structure. The Internet.org Social-Media Behemoth claims that the agency’s in-house process to deliberate on the matter violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, followed dismissal in the same court of Internet.org Meta’s complaint that sought to require judicial approval for the FTC.gov to reopen the $5 Billion agreement & the largest privacy enforcement payment in U.S. history via *BloombergLaw.com. AI.gov, CISA.gov, CFTC.gov, Congress.gov, Data.gov, FBI.gov, FTC.gov, HHS.gov, IC3.gov & ICE.gov, Justice.gov, MyMoney.gov, Public.Cyber.mil, Regulations.gov, SEC.gov, Section230.us, Senate.gov, USA.gov & USCourts.gov, USTR.gov, Whistleblowers.gov @ Youth.gov 🏛🤺🏛🤺🏛

There has been a surge in online transactions involving certain terms and conditions over the years. But how binding are these online contracts? This article throws light on fundamental principles governing the enforceability of online agreements. #legaltech #digitaltransactions

U.S. Justice Department Vs. GOOGLE: Google's ongoing Antitrust Trial In a world where ‘Google’ has become more than a product, but a word synonymous with search, the U.S. Justice Department is gearing up to scrutinize Google's alleged monopolistic practices in the search engine space. The trial, which began on September 12, 2023, brings to the forefront the intricate agreements between Google and its business partners, notably Apple. Apple’s Role Three senior Apple executives, Eduardo Cue, John Giannandrea, and Adrian Perica, have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial. Despite their objections citing "duplicative" and "unduly burdensome" requests, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has mandated their presence in court. These executives oversee various domains including Apple Music, AI strategy, and corporate development at Apple. The Crux of the Case The U.S. Justice Department has built its case on Google's practice of sharing billions in annual advertising revenue with business partners such as Apple, to ensure Google's search engine remains the default on their devices. According to the government, this agreement has aided Google in maintaining a dominant position in the market, raising concerns about a monopolistic market environment where competition is stifled. Apple's Concerns Although not a defendant in the case, Apple finds itself in a precarious position, having disclosed over 125,000 documents from senior executives in response to "overbroad" demands. The company is apprehensive about potentially disclosing competitively sensitive information during the trial, emphasizing the need to shield details concerning business negotiations and confidential contract terms. Google's Defense Google, on its part, has denied any wrongdoing. John Schmidtlein, a lawyer representing Google, argued that offering a superior product and winning business on merit is not unlawful. The tech giant maintains that its business practices are above board, setting the stage for a heated legal battle where the essence of competition in the digital space will be under the microscope. Precedents and Looking Forward This case is reminiscent of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust case against Microsoft in 2001, which led to the tech boom we are currently experiencing. Both parties came to a settlement with Microsoft drafting a proposal that allowed PC makers to adopt other software. This case not only brings Google's business practices to light but also opens a dialogue on the ethical boundaries of business agreements in the tech industry. Conclusion The results of this case will be a turning point in the search engine and digital ads market, as the DOJ has filed another lawsuit against Google, for their Ads technology, which will be going to trial next year. The verdict could redefine our relationship with the internet and digital space, We will bring you updates as the case unfolds. #Google #antitrustlaw #Apple

Major decision from the Ninth Circuit today about personal jurisdiction and the internet. You can read my longer analysis at my Substack I’ve linked, but for a quick takeaway, be aware that websites and platforms will be much more insulated from personal jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit from now on.

NRF’s positioning on #APRA: “drive by lawsuits” as a result of conduct by service providers: “Since small businesses could face lawsuits for the privacy violations of marketing service providers they choose to reach consumers, the risk of engaging in any marketing services increases and could significantly limit their growth. In essence, small businesses cannot grow and expand if they cannot market their products to consumers because the potential legal exposure from engaging in marketing is too great a risk to take on.” [Side point: Seems like they may already be facing these same risks today even without APRA as a result of the wiretapping lawsuits and demands? 🤷🏻♀️] As a counter point to NRF’s post, this article was interesting in capturing the recent hearing held by a Vermont house legislation committee gathering feedback from other state legislatures regarding the “playbook” used to shut down new privacy bills: “Rep. O’Neil described how industry “organized local businesses and local chambers almost to scare them into thinking that they wouldn't be able to access the tools that they usually access with targeted advertising.’” https://lnkd.in/eS4_TfSB Net net? We’re probably at somewhere in between. I don’t think we’ve seen legislatures be upfront in explaining how their bills will change digital advertising practices (first party data or sharing with third parties). It’s usually left to the subtext and outside lawyers to infer and interpret. Knowing that this is such a key issue for businesses, why not be upfront with legislative intent? #privacylaws #CIPA #nationalretailfederation Kelley Drye Advertising Law Kelley Drye & Warren LLP https://lnkd.in/eqvtNzE7