Why are there antitrust cases against Google?
QGoogle is being sued on a number of fronts for so-called antitrust violations, but in my view, Google provides a lot of really good services and employs a lot of people. Is “just too big” the issue?
— B.G., Torrance
AAntitrust prohibitions are found in federal and state laws that seek to regulate the conduct and organization of business entities, with the focus on promoting competition and preventing monopolies. Google, the well-known search engine, faces litigation brought by state and federal enforcers. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing a case that argues Google utilizes anti-competitive tactics to protect its monopoly over general search activities. Another litigation, brought by a coalition over 30 states, makes a similar argument but includes further allegations, the most significant of which is that Google utilizes its control over general searches (Googling) to discriminate against other companies in the vertical search business (for example, Yelp or Kayak). This means that Google wants us to begin all searches on Google, not otherwise.
Google vigorously contests these cases, and there is quite a ways to go to see how they play out. It is not so much that “too big” is the issue. It is whether “too big” means too much snuffing out of others, done in such a way that trade and commerce are truly obstructed.
QThere are antitrust bills now in the U.S. Congress to revamp the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook. What is going on there?
— B.G., Torrance
ADrafts of antitrust bills that might reshape popular business models for the Big Tech companies are being circulated. This follows a year-long investigation by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, focusing on Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook. A nearly 450-page report was produced. The draft bills have various features, including limiting the ability of the four companies to complete large mergers, requiring each to make it easier for users to leave their platforms with their data intact, and preventing them from owning businesses that present a conflict of interest. Bottom line, as with the lawsuits against Google, stay tuned. One question that clearly presents itself >> By purporting to rein in these businesses, are we instead hurting the market place and not letting fullon competition play itself out?
Clarification
Last week, this column responded to a question about whether an employer can require you to take an approved coronavirus vaccine. In it, I implied that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had received full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which they have not. To clarify: The Moderna and Pfifer vaccines have not been approved by the FDA as of today, but have received Emergency Use Authorization. Thus, you are first to be informed you are not required to take the shot. In turn, an employer has a level of discretion to terminate an employee whose employment is at-will. Just how this will be dealt with going forward carries some uncertainty for the time being.
Ron Sokol is a Manhattan
Beach attorney with more than 35 years of experience. His column, which appears in print on Wednesdays, presents a summary of the law and should not be construed as legal advice. Email questions and comments to him at ronsesq@gmail.com.