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. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Specifically, the court holds that (1) there are relevant product markets for general search services and general search text ads; (2) Google has monopoly power in those markets; (3) Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and (4) Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements. Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits.
Other determinations favor Google. The court holds that (1) there is a product market for search advertising but that Google lacks monopoly power in that market; (2) there is no product market for general search advertising; and (3) Google is not liable for its actions involving its advertising platform, SA360. The court also declines to sanction Google under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) for its failure to preserve its employees’ chat messages.
This decision is organized as follows. The court begins with a brief procedural history. It then sets forth findings of fact. They are followed by the court’s conclusions of law regarding the challenged distribution agreements. The court first addresses market definition and monopoly power, then the exclusionary nature of the conduct (including the contracts’ exclusivity), and finally the agreements’ anticompetitive effects and Google’s procompetitive justifications for them. A discussion of the SA360-related conduct follows. The opinion ends with brief sections on anticompetitive intent, as well as Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. The court has included as an Appendix a list of the names and titles of all witnesses whose testimony is cited in the decision.
4
