.webp)
Matt Shruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), has criticized the U.S. government's antitrust lawsuit against Google, stating that the government is trying to push consumers towards a product they prefer less than Google Search simply because the government believes Google is too big. Shruers made these comments amidst the ongoing legal battle over Google's search engine market dominance.
"This is pretty clearly an example of the government picking winners and losers," Shruers said. "We've got Bing's CEO testifying, saying, our product isn't as good, and yet the government is trying to drive consumers towards that product and away from one that their preferences reveal they prefer."
Shruers expressed concern over the government's intentions to engage in structural relief, which he described as a euphemism for breaking up big companies based solely on their size. He emphasized that the size of a company is not inherently bad, but rather it is the company's behavior that should be scrutinized.
While Shruers acknowledged the positive impact of antitrust law in the past, citing CCIA's fight against IBM, AT&T, and Microsoft monopolies, he argued that in this case, the government is targeting a product that people are generally satisfied with. He criticized the government's attempt to drive consumers towards the product of "an even bigger corporation" that is less popular, stating that it goes against the purpose of U.S. antitrust law.
Shruers further contended that the case against Google Search is based on outdated theories about how people obtain information online. He highlighted the vast array of alternatives available to consumers, such as AI, voice assistants, apps, and other products that can provide information without relying on a search engine. "The market for answers is enormous," Shruers stated.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused Google, which holds a 90% market share in search, of using unfair tactics to maintain its dominant position. However, Google's lead lawyer, John Schmidtlein, has argued that Google Search's dominance is a result of its superior product compared to its competitors. Google has also emphasized that consumers have the option to easily switch to a different search engine if they prefer.
During the court proceedings, Mikhail Parakhin, the CEO of Advertising and Web Services at Microsoft, admitted that Microsoft's mobile search is not as good as Google's. He further stated that investing more heavily in mobile search would be "uneconomical" for Microsoft due to the inability to distribute it at scale. Observers have pointed out that this argument weakens Microsoft's claim of unfair treatment in the search market, as it indicates a lack of willingness to invest in a competitive product.
The outcome of the antitrust lawsuit against Google Search remains uncertain, with arguments being presented from both sides regarding market dominance, consumer preference, and the role of antitrust law in regulating large corporations.