Hard work and innovation are not just individual pursuits. They’re the cornerstone of the American Dream. They’re our national ethos. They’re our collective work ethic. And, apparently, they’re all for nothing if you are a large, successful tech company.
Former Florida State Senator Jeff Brandes
That’s the message that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sent out far and wide with his recent decision in United States v. Google. The judge ruled that Google is violating antitrust law, even though the company does not harm consumers and has the best search product available.
The Justice Department alleged that Google has maintained an illegal search engine monopoly despite limited evidence or legal precedent supporting this theory. Instead, the judge simply created legal theories to support his conclusion, legal theories that will impact and hurt businesses across our economy, not just in tech. Google, of course, is the leader in search; the judge not only recognized this but went out of his way to outline that Google provides the best search product to consumers. However, being the leader in an industry is not synonymous with being a monopoly, and it certainly does not reflect consumer harm.
Google has become the most popular search engine by investing heavily in research and development to enhance its product and user experience, which Judge Mehta’s own words convey most clearly. Judge Mehta stated in his decision, “[Google] has hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated consistently, and made shrewd business decisions. The result is the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users.”
Why, then, is Google being targeted? Users are not locked into using Google’s search engine and can easily switch to a different search engine if they choose to do so. Consumers can change their search defaults, update their phones, tablets, and computers, and personalize their search process generally any way they prefer. Yet consumers choose Google time and time again. This isn’t because they have to. It’s because Google provides the best search product, thanks to decades of hard work and innovation.
Hard work, innovation, and success should not be punished, particularly not in the name of antitrust law. Antitrust law is simply not designed to penalize companies that are successful in their marketplace; it is designed to protect consumers from harm.
In fact, weaponizing antitrust law, as Judge Mehta seems to want our courts to do, will create widespread economic harm and legal uncertainty that will only benefit the lawyers racking up billable hours – not consumers. And it will further stifle innovation in our economy and hurt America’s companies to compete internationally.
In the words of Milton Friedman, “government should be a referee, not an active player.” The court, in this case, however, not only feels the government should be an active player in our economy but that it should pick the winners and losers.
As this case progresses, I hope the courts reconsider this unprecedented and flawed decision and instead put consumers and their personal preferences first.
Jeff Brandes is a former Florida State Senator, representing parts of Pinellas County