- d. Scale
Finally, Plaintiffs identify scale as a barrier to entry. A lengthy discussion on the relationship between scale and search engine quality is unnecessary at this stage. See infra Section V.A.2. It is enough to say for now that scale is an important factor in search quality. As Google admits, “the volume and availability of user interaction data is one factor that can affect search quality[.]” Google’s Proposed Findings of Fact, ECF No. 835, ¶ 256 [hereinafter GFOF]. Google has a lot of scale, and new entrants struggle to obtain it. FOF ¶¶ 87, 89. As Dr. Ramaswamy testified, acquiring users and getting them into the “habit” of using a new product is “tricky.” Tr. at 3699:22 (Ramaswamy). Securing users to generate scale, in order to then exploit the benefits of scale, is a significant barrier to entry. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 55–56 (identifying as an entry barrier that “most developers prefer to write for operating systems that already have a substantial consumer base,” such that developers would not similarly support rival operating systems without scale); see also FTC v. Surescripts, LLC, 665 F. Supp. 3d 14, 45 (D.D.C. 2023) (same).
- 4. Google’s Counterarguments
Google counters that the barriers to entry are not as high as Plaintiffs suggest. It points to (1) evidence of new entrants;[1] (2) the emergence of nascent technology like artificial intelligence; and (3) its own emergence in a market that, prior to its entry, was dominated by other firms, most notably Yahoo. Google also cites the growth of search output (measured by number of queries) as inconsistent with its monopoly power. None of these contentions demonstrate low barriers to entry.
- ↑ Google also presented expert testimony that SVPs are market entrants that demonstrate low barriers to entry. See, e.g., Tr. at 8438:12-14 (Israel). But that argument has no force because the relevant market does not include SVPs or social media platforms.
161
