Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled that Google has a search monopoly.
Yes, you heard the bomb right.
Google. The company whose name everyone uses as an abbreviation for “search” has a monopoly. On search.
The White House called the ruling “a victory for the American people.” Attorney General Merrick Garland spoke of a “historic victory.” A “shocking defeat” for Google, rejoiced CNN, comparing the ruling, like most media, to the US antitrust case against Microsoft in 2001, which concerned the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows.
The only truly astonishing thing about the Google ruling is that it took nearly four years to reach. To be fair, the government has also been working on several equally complicated investigations: the five-year investigation into whether the Pope is actually Catholic; a decades-long trial to find out who was shitting in the woods next to the bear colony.
As for the comparison to the Microsoft ruling… well, sure. The ruling against Google is very similar in that it cost a lot of taxpayer money and will have next to no impact on the company’s size or dominance in the long run. As Axios put it, “Google… will remain a digital Goliath,” adding, “It’s pretty common for complex antitrust decisions like this to be overturned.”
Indeed, as the case dragged on, Google’s traditional search tools were rapidly being eclipsed by the rise of artificial intelligence, namely OpenAI, the bold startup whose biggest investor is… Microsoft. The same Microsoft humiliated by the Department of Justice that is currently the second most valuable company in the world, with a 72% market share in desktop operating systems.
Of course, I’m slow on the uptake. Technology monopolies are bad, for consumers and the market, and the Justice Department has long put up an important wall of protection against them. Back in 1982, the government broke up AT&T, creating real competition in the telecommunications industry. The Microsoft ruling is rightly called a turning point in Silicon Valley, as it opened up competition in the web browser market.
But historically, antitrust cases against the big tech companies have had a lasting impact on public perception. The ruling against Microsoft still resonates because it transformed the company from a harmless bunch of nerds into the predatory corporate giant we all know today.
In this context, the contrast between the reaction to the Microsoft case (whoa!) and the Google ruling (yawn!) underscores how much Silicon Valley has changed in the last two decades.
Simply put, it is no longer shocking – or even remarkable – to learn that technology companies cheat and break the law to maintain their dominance. Uber, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Tesla – the most successful technology companies are also recognized around the world as those most willing to ignore, flout or rewrite the law to empower themselves and eliminate competitors.
Even Apple, still loved by the most annoying people you know, is widely viewed as a greedy megacorporation that lures users into its network of devices previously built on the backs of child labor. Depressingly, its products are so shiny and magical that we can’t bring ourselves to be angry.
In 2001, users hated being forced to use Internet Explorer. Today, users are entirely dependent on monopolies, although we prefer to call them “ecosystems.” It’s not that we don’t see their harms; it’s just that, given their obvious, if often dubious, benefits (free productivity software that’s better than the stuff Microsoft used to sell for the bank; same-day delivery of all kinds of junk; unlimited streaming of incomprehensible Marvel shows), we don’t care.
And that’s where the government’s real challenge lies. According to Morning Consult, only 44% of the public actively supports the Justice Department’s action against Google. In a world where technology is scouring our eyes for free cryptocurrency, how can the Justice Department recapture public anger at a search engine company that controls all searches?
Perhaps they could take a lesson from the incredible effectiveness of the Harris/Walz presidential candidacy. Just a few weeks ago, voter enthusiasm for the election was at an all-time low. Voters knew that Donald Trump was a felon and JD Vance was a fascist-curious figurehead of Big Tech, but that knowledge had become just background noise.
Then Harris and Walz came along and realized that there is something much, much more reprehensible – especially for younger voters – than being a wannabe dictator. And that is “weird” or, worse, “creepy.”
You want something spooky and creepy? Meet Google. This is a company that tracks you around the internet and remembers every website you visit. It shares this information with its friends so they can sell you things. Its AI wants you to eat glue.
The is the message the Justice Department should use to attack Google. To break its monopoly through sheer force, Yuck.
A modest proposal: The Justice Department’s antitrust division is no longer functional. It should be disbanded and replaced by a new, much cheaper “Department of WTF?!” Instead of expensive jury trials, the DOWTF?! – staffed by five TikTokers and a folksy suburban dad – would produce an endless stream of viral videos and relentlessly criticize the big tech companies for being gross or just plain suspect.
Google has a monopoly on search, but did you know that its advertising platform likes to focus on home furnishings?
Do you think iMessage has spikes on its shoes?
At night, most PayPal founders fantasize about JD Vance.
In fact, the latter is true.
Of course, this new approach would probably do nothing to curb the dominance or anti-competitive behavior of the big tech companies in the long term. But so do most antitrust rulings. The DOWTF?! could have exactly the same effect, for pennies.
And, my God, the appeals would be hilarious.
