The ruling: “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” US Judge Mehta stated. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
In the wake of a federal court’s landmark antitrust ruling against Google, competing tech giants stand to gain a foothold in the search industry that could reap big returns, writes The Wall Street Journal. One potential remedy could involve ending Google’s multibillion-dollar deals with Apple, Samsung and others to be their default search engine. LinkedIn parent Microsoft’s Bing, for instance, stands to make billions if users switch. AI developments have already begun to alter how users use search, and recent deals, including the collaboration between OpenAI and Apple, could mark a sea change for the industry. (LinkedIn News)
In the 19th century, railroads played a pivotal role in shaping the American economy, with intense competition and financial struggles characterizing the industry. However, this era also saw the rise of monopolies like Standard Oil, which revolutionized the oil industry through efficient production and transportation methods. The Panic of 1873 further exacerbated economic challenges, leading to significant repercussions for both businesses and consumers. In response to concerns about monopolistic practices, the Sherman Antitrust Act was introduced in 1890 to regulate anti-competitive behavior and promote fair competition. Fast forward to today where tech utilities dominate.
Here is the deal: Google won search via innovation and has the rights to capture all the associated goodies on innovation. But Google should not and must not use contracts to keep its dominance on search. In other words, paying Apple about $20 billion to have Google as its default in its browser is not fair and balanced, not just for the competitors, but also for users.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
In the Igbo Nation, these proverbs – “whenever one wakes up is his own morning” and “your beginning starts whenever you’re ready” – are absolute on competition. That you pioneered a category does not mean another person cannot begin from where you have stopped. This ruling is something the African Union and ECOWAS courts could consider, making a determination if there are potential illegalities in the African tech space, especially when it comes to exclusive contracts by and with foreign and local companies.
Simply, I support the Call of the US Court.
---
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (Feb 10 - May 3, 2025), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.
Before we start asking African courts to determine who is a monopolist, we must first establish clear definitions and practices that once breached, then a monopolist is born. Being a dominant player or the only player does not automatically make one a monopolist. You will need to block someone or deploy destructive tactics to be viewed as a monopolist.
The court ruling against Google is quite logical. If you buy off all the major browsers and platforms to show your product first, how else will other players compete, since they cannot bid more money? Amazon is both a marketplace and a merchant, that is another monopolistic tendency, if it uses its dominant position to favour its own products on Amazon marketplace. Whenever we are determined to do things the right way, we will know what to do.