The court structures its conclusions of law consistent with Microsoft’s analytical framework. After first summarizing the principles governing market definition, infra Section II.A, the court in Section II.B addresses whether general search services is a relevant product market, and finding that it is, then evaluates in Section II.C whether Google has monopoly power in that market. In Part III, the court considers the three proposed advertiser-side markets. The court finds that Plaintiffs have established two relevant markets—search advertising and general search text advertising—but that Google possesses monopoly power only in the narrower market for general search text advertising. All parties agree that the relevant geographic market is the United States.
The court then determines whether Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct in the relevant product markets. Plaintiffs’ primary theory centers on Google’s distribution agreements with browser developers, OEMs, and carriers. The court first addresses in Part IV whether the distribution agreements are exclusive under Microsoft. Finding that they are, the court then analyzes in Parts V and VI whether the contracts have anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications in each market. For reasons that will become evident, the court does not reach the balancing of anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. Ultimately, the court concludes that Google’s exclusive distribution agreements have contributed to Google’s maintenance of its monopoly power in two relevant markets: general search services and general search text advertising.
In Part VII, the court evaluates Plaintiff States’ additional theory of exclusionary conduct: that Google caused anticompetitive effects in the proposed markets by purposely advantaging its own advertising platform over Microsoft’s on its search engine management tool, SA360. The court finds that Google’s SA360-related conduct does not give rise to antitrust liability for two
135
