Close this menu

Beyond Google: How Antitrust Remedies Could Leave American Consumers Paying the Price

This week, the Justice Department (DOJ) will propose a framework for their preferred remedies to the U.S. District Court in its legal crusade against Google. The company has revolutionized how customers are able to find information most relevant to them online by providing efficient, reliable and affordable (often free) products and services available to anyone with an internet connection. Unfortunately, a federal judge recently issued a misguided antitrust ruling against Google. Now, this case will move into the “remedies” phase of trial. 

Various Google critics have advocated for the DOJ to seek punishing restrictions against the company. If the DOJ pursues some of these ideas in its proposed remedies, which should be filed tomorrow, they could have serious unintended consequences that will ripple across the entire technology industry, and economy more broadly. If adopted by the court, these “remedies” would affect everything from prices to American business competing internationally.   

Columbia Law professor and President Biden’s former economic advisor Tim Wu wrote at The New York Times that Google “has produced great products, many of which are offered at no direct cost to consumers.” However, Wu spends the length of the piece lamenting the success of these services, advocating for the company to be broken up and even suggesting that the court force Google “to grant anyone free and open access to all of its A.I. technologies.”

The world is on the cusp of realizing the benefits of AI technologies. Forcing one of America’s leading AI innovators to open up access to their work to “anyone” not only undercuts the company’s own innovation and property but would bolster global competitors.

Companies like DuckDuckGo and Yelp have suggested that various products be broken off, like Google’s search tools, maps and reviews. As some of Google’s largest competitors for such services, these companies both stand to benefit from such drastic measures.

These suggestions have 2 common threads: they do not prioritize the tangible benefits Google has contributed to consumers, and they focus on the desires of Google’s competitors. American antitrust law is supposed to protect consumers—not business interests. 

It’s crucial the DOJ approach its proposed remedies with caution: 

Kneecapping American Competitiveness Globally

When the U.S. government penalizes American companies for being successful, it does more than curb that specific business—it risks compromising our position as a global leader in technology and innovation. If innovators fear being prosecuted for becoming successful, the incentives for taking risks, growing and investing in new technologies will diminish. American companies face many foreign competitors that are eager to step in and claim the space that weakening our own innovators would leave behind. Such overly aggressive actions would hinder our ability to compete against these organizations and cede ground to them. 

Undermining the American Economy

As noted above, if businesses fear becoming successful due to enhanced government scrutiny, their motivation to innovate for consumers and build better products will decline. This means consumers will have worse products at higher prices—due to government tinkering in the marketplace rather than letting Americans innovate and thrive. 

Google itself also contributes significantly to the economy, investing heavily in research and development, creating jobs and providing valuable services at low cost to millions of businesses nationwide. But a forced breakup of certain Google functions could lead to increased production costs, which would ultimately be passed on to consumers and businesses that use Google’s services.

We’ve seen the real world impact of this approach just this week when budget airliner Spirit announced it would be filing for bankruptcy. Earlier this year, the company tried to merge with JetBlue, but the DOJ successfully blocked the merger in court over “competition concerns.” Unfortunately, consumers will now be left with less affordable options, less routes, less jobs and less innovation in the airline industry, which can be at least partially traced back to the DOJ’s misguided intervention on “fair competition” grounds—hurting consumers, not helping them. 

Spurring a Cascade of Unintended Consequences

Some of the proposed remedies could lead to unintended, unforeseen negative consequences, such as reduced efficiency of digital advertising products. Additionally, restricting Google’s operations could hinder developer innovation and limit the tools available to create new technologies. 

Increased Government Overreach in the Private Sector

The DOJ’s approach could further increase government overreach into the private sector by using judicial remedies to dictate how companies operate, effectively legislating from the bench. This troubling precedent bypasses the democratic process, as courts, not policymakers, would determine regulatory decisions—not the legislature. Regulatory policy should be crafted by elected representatives to avoid undermining innovation, the tech industry, and America’s global competitiveness.

Ultimately, the DOJ’s recommended remedies stand not only to impact Google. American consumers will feel the effects of such a ruling, as will innovators trying to grow in the market and large and small businesses that use Google’s products for their operations. The DOJ, and eventually the court, must be cautious and carefully consider how its proposed remedies may affect American consumers, our businesses, our jobs, our economy and our global competitiveness.