Every day, millions of consumers rely on search engines to provide quick access to vast amounts of information online. Search technology developed by American businesses allows users to search for products, read the news, or access educational resources. Today, competition among companies for consumers who value innovation and advanced new technology has developed a robust, highly competitive search engine marketplace.
However, in October, a federal court will begin to consider remedies following the decision in Google v. United States that could undermine the search engine landscape that currently works for consumers. In fact, some of the remedies that might be proposed to resolve the lawsuit threaten to create a less competitive search engine marketplace and risk harming consumers.
The current search engine landscape works because companies are required to innovate and create a product that consumers want to use. Google, which according to the verdict in Google v. United States achieved its success because consumers “value [Search’s] quality,” has continually invested to provide users with products they enjoy. However, heavy-handed remedy proposals following the Google Search case risk breaking those products. A forced divestiture of Android or Chrome, for example, would make it impossible for Google to continue offering integrated security and privacy protections to consumers, leaving users more vulnerable to threats like malware and data breaches.
Other overly restrictive remedies, like preventing Google from fairly competing for default search engine contracts, risk making the search engine marketplace less competitive. Currently, Google is permitted to bid for contracts to serve as the default search engine on certain devices and web browsers that rely on search engine contracts for a significant portion of their revenue. Without this revenue, device manufacturers may have to raise prices for consumers, and web browsers that depend on these deals might not be able to fund their businesses, leaving consumers with fewer options. Additionally, this heavy-handed approach would make it harder for smaller companies to break into the marketplace, leading to a stagnant, less innovative economy.
The remedies considered by the court must be careful to avoid harming consumers, stifling innovation, or undermining the U.S. economy. Ultimately, the court should work to protect consumers and maintain a competitive, dynamic market.