Page:United States v Google 20240805.pdf/7

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM
Document 1033
Filed 08/05/24
Page 7 of 286

Google pays huge sums to secure these preloaded defaults. Usually, the amount is calculated as a percentage of the advertising revenue that Google generates from queries run through the default search access points. This is known as “revenue share.” In 2021, those payments totaled more than $26 billion. That is nearly four times more than all of Google’s other search-specific costs combined. In exchange for revenue share, Google not only receives default placement at the key search access points, but its partners also agree not to preload any other general search engine on the device. Thus, most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google. These distribution deals have forced Google’s rivals to find other ways to reach users.

Google’s dominance eventually attracted the attention of antitrust enforcers—the U.S. Department of Justice and nearly every state’s Attorney General. They homed in on Google’s distribution agreements and in late 2020 filed two separate lawsuits alleging that the agreements and certain other conduct violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. According to their complaints, Google has unlawfully used the distribution agreements to thwart competition and maintain its monopoly in the market for general search services and in various online advertising markets.

The proceedings that followed have been remarkable. Discovery began in December 2020 and concluded in March 2023. Millions of pages exchanged hands, Google produced petabytes of data, and the parties deposed dozens of witnesses, including high-ranking executives at some of the world’s largest technology companies. The court held a nine-week bench trial starting in September 2023. It heard from dozens of live witnesses, including multiple experts, and admitted over 3,500 exhibits. After receiving extensive post-trial submissions, the court held closing arguments over two days in early May 2024. The lawyering has been first rate throughout.

3