Google’s Empire Cracks

by Christina Maas  | Oct 14, 2024

For almost a decade, the Silicon Valley behemoth known for charming us with colorful doodles and once-innocuous search engines has been under the microscope, and yet, up until recently, it seemed completely untouchable. Google, the eternal golden child of tech, acted as if Congressional hearings were mere distractions—a great way to exercise the legal team and brush up on public-speaking skills. Sure, the occasional Senator would fumble around, barely able to operate the very devices they were accused of being tools of evil monopolistic practices, but serious consequences? Google was untouchable. The very idea of the giant having to answer for antitrust violations was laughable—until it wasn’t.

Somewhere in the mid-2010s, the winds started to shift. What began as the usual governmental grumbling turned into full-scale investigations. By 2020, Google, once the darling of tech revolutionaries, faced formal antitrust charges. It seemed the jig was up, or at least it was getting awkwardly close to being up. But for all the noise, the company’s leadership probably thought it was business as usual. They’ve been through it before, right? It’s not like anybody was breaking up monopolies these days—after all, this wasn’t the Microsoft trial from the ’90s.

The Verdict is In: Google, You’re a Monopolist

That level of complacency shattered in August when Judge Amit Mehta delivered a gut punch of a ruling. “Google is a monopolist,” declared Mehta in what could be described as the understatement of the decade. The case, United States of America vs. Google LLC, might as well have been titled The US Government Finally Finds its Backbone. Mehta didn’t mince words: “Google has acted as one [a monopolist] to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

That’s legalese for: “You’ve been crushing competition like a juice box, and we’re calling you out.”

This wasn’t just a little slap on the wrist either. It was Google’s second major legal blow in less than a year after an Epic Games suit in December 2023 zeroed in on its shady practices surrounding Android and its app store. You know it’s bad when even the video game industry is taking you down a peg.

The Mighty Shrug: Google Stays Cool—For Now

Yet, in the true spirit of corporate behemoths everywhere, Google hardly flinched. Sure, they had just been called out for acting like a digital mafia boss, but what were a few legal defeats? Despite the fireworks in court, Google’s day-to-day operations seemed untouched. No immediate remedies. No big changes. Just the usual, “We respectfully disagree and will review our options” spiel from the legal team. You could practically hear the shrug over the press releases.

But even for Google, the clock has started ticking. The recent court decisions and some looming remedies suggest that the company’s dominance might finally face a real challenge.

Remedies: Trimming the Edges or Cutting to the Core?

In the aftermath of the Epic Games case, the courts ordered Google to do what would have been unthinkable just a few years ago—allow alternative app stores on Android devices and drop the whole “if you don’t use our services, you’re nobody” routine that had locked down the platform. It’s a big deal, but again, we’re talking about a company that could afford to roll out a self-driving car with the loose change between its couch cushions.

Simultaneously, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is sharpening its knives. Their proposed remedies don’t exactly include smashing Google to pieces like some tech fantasy of the late ’90s. No, they’re not suggesting a dramatic breakup—YouTube and Waymo remain safely ensconced under the Google umbrella for now. But they’re clearly setting the stage for some serious changes, aiming to strip Google of its most egregious competitive advantages.

The DOJ wants to tear down the fortress of restrictive contracts and backroom deals that have kept Google at the top. They’re targeting Google’s revenue-sharing schemes with major players like Apple—the ones that basically ensured that no competitor in search stood a chance. Forget the tired excuse of “just being the best option.” This was a rigged game, and everyone knew it.

Chrome, Android, Play

But that’s not all. Judge Mehta and the DOJ are pushing for the possible breakup of Google’s prized possessions: Chrome, Play, and Android. The trifecta that makes up Google’s iron grip on how we browse, buy, and communicate is suddenly in the crosshairs.

And then there’s the sweet, sweet data. For years, Google has collected mountains of it, like a gold rush prospector hoarding nuggets in the form of your search queries, location history, and buying habits. The DOJ now suggests that Google should be forced to share that data—or at least stop using it as a shield. In other words, Google can no longer use the pretense of protecting user privacy to lock out competitors. Let’s be honest: Google didn’t love your privacy. It loved your data.

The Beginning of the End or Just a Bump in the Road?

Now, we’re left wondering: is this it? Is this the moment where Google’s tech monopoly starts to unravel, piece by piece, like an overstretched sweater? Or is it just another hurdle for a company that’s learned to clear obstacles with ease?

Judge Mehta made it clear that the remedies should address not just Google’s illegal actions but the broader ripple effect of its behavior. By cutting off its exclusive contracts, curbing its data control, and potentially slicing off key sections like Android or Chrome, the powers that be are starting to chip away at the digital empire.

But let’s not kid ourselves. Google’s not going down without a fight. It’s got more lawyers than a Wall Street hedge fund, and enough money to lobby Congress into a prolonged stupor. This might be the start of something.

As the DOJ tightens the screws, Google’s response is nothing short of predictable: full-throttle outrage wrapped in a veneer of concern for “the greater good.” The latest developments threaten not just Google’s search dominance, but its stranglehold on AI-driven search tools and, even more alarmingly for Mountain View, its highly lucrative ad business. After all, when you can essentially print money by controlling who gets to advertise and where, losing that control feels like a punch in the gut. But according to Google, it’s not about their wallet—it’s about you, the humble user. They’ve launched an all-out PR blitz, insisting the government’s attempts to rein in their monopoly are not only “radical” but downright dangerous for your privacy and the security of your devices.
Translation: “We’ve been cornered, but if we go down, we’re taking your Android phone with us.”

In a blog post as polished as a Super Bowl ad, Google’s leadership warned that the DOJ’s actions could “break your phone and browser,” as though their monopoly is the only thing holding the entire digital ecosystem together. They didn’t stop there. The company also painted a dystopian picture of a crippled US economy, hamstrung by an overzealous government, where technological innovation is a thing of the past and America’s tech dominance is on life support. It’s classic Big Tech playbook: when all else fails, make it sound like the economy will collapse if you’re asked to play fair.

Media Manipulation: The Google Spin Machine in Action

Behind the scenes, Google’s PR machine has been working overtime. Their strategy? Saturate the media with sympathetic voices, many of whom conveniently fail to mention their financial ties to Google. It’s a tactic as old as time—stack the deck with experts and commentators who just happen to share your views, ensuring that headlines stay favorable.

Enter The Financial Times and The Economist, two stalwart publications that have a habit of sounding the alarm whenever Big Tech gets criticized. It’s no coincidence that these media outlets have been forcefully defending Google’s position, arguing that the government’s antitrust crusade could stunt innovation and global competitiveness. While these pieces may carry a veneer of impartiality, their arguments echo Google’s PR script a little too perfectly. Funny how that happens.

But it doesn’t end with the press. Google’s army of surrogates extends to TV networks like CNBC, where former Google employees like Bret Taylor are trotted out to question whether our elected officials are even capable of understanding the intricacies of tech regulation. It’s the classic Silicon Valley condescension: “Look, these politicians barely know how to operate a smartphone, how could they possibly know what’s good for the future of AI?”

Political Puppetry: The Mark Cuban Factor

And then there’s Mark Cuban—billionaire investor, Shark Tank star, and apparently, Google’s newest political hitman. Cuban, who just so happens to consult for Google while maintaining cozy ties with the Harris campaign, has made headlines by suggesting that if he were president, Lina Khan, a regulator favored by Vice Presidential candidate J.D Vance,  would be packing her bags. Never mind that Khan isn’t even directly involved in the Google antitrust case; her removal would be the symbolic “screw you” that Google and its Big Tech buddies have been clamoring for.

Khan, of course, represents everything that terrifies monopolistic giants—a chair of the Federal Trade Commission who seems interested in regulating the Wild West of Silicon Valley. Cuban’s comments were less about Khan and more about sending a clear message: if you’re thinking about reining us in, think again. We’ve got friends in high places, and we’re not afraid to use them.

Academics and Think Tanks: The Invisible Hand of Google

As if the media and political muscle weren’t enough, Google’s influence seeps even further into the public consciousness through a network of trade associations and academic “thought leaders” who, wouldn’t you know it, often receive funding from Google. These aren’t just random bloggers, but polished experts, professors, and researchers who regularly appear in news stories and op-eds, spreading the good word about why breaking up Big Tech would be the worst thing since Y2K.

To the casual observer, it looks like an organic chorus of voices all warning of the perils of antitrust enforcement. But scratch the surface and it becomes obvious—Google is playing puppet master, pulling the strings on a cadre of “independent” experts who just so happen to share the company’s views on free markets and innovation. It’s an echo chamber masquerading as a debate.

Google’s Nobel Defense: A Flimsy Shield for a Monopoly?

Google’s latest strategy in defending itself from the tidal wave of antitrust actions is an all-too-familiar one: the myth of Big Tech indispensability. Their principal argument? Without massive, centralized tech companies, we wouldn’t have the kind of technological breakthroughs that push society forward. As proof, they wave around the fact that a scientist at a Google-acquired company just won a Nobel Prize—see? How can monopolies be bad if they’re giving us Nobel winners?

But this argument, though flashy, doesn’t hold up to historical scrutiny. Major technological leaps—like the invention of the transistor, which laid the groundwork for the modern computing age, or the development of the personal computer—didn’t come from monopoly superpowers. They often emerged precisely because monopolies were dismantled, leaving room for innovation to thrive. AT&T’s iron grip on telecommunications didn’t lead to the transistor; Bell Labs did after AT&T was forced to open up due to antitrust actions. The gasoline cracking process, which revolutionized the oil industry, was born out of Standard Oil’s breakup. History, it seems, doesn’t smile upon monopolistic strangleholds. It suggests they stifle innovation rather than foster it.

The DOJ’s Comprehensive Strike

In this ideological battle, the DOJ isn’t buying Google’s self-serving fairy tale. Their argument is clear: It’s not enough to just slap Google’s wrist and say, “Now, don’t do that again.” The DOJ understands that Google, with its boundless resources and brainpower, could just invent new ways to monopolize markets. This is Silicon Valley, after all—the place that innovated the “pivot.” The solution, according to the DOJ, isn’t just to punish Google for past misdeeds but to strip it of the immense advantages it gained through those coercive practices. This means tearing down the structures that allowed Google to get to this dominant position and imposing strict restrictions on how it operates moving forward.

Google, predictably, sees this as overkill. They argue that their success has nothing to do with shady monopolistic practices and everything to do with superior product design. But the DOJ—and let’s face it, anyone paying attention—knows better. The question isn’t whether Google built great products; it’s whether those products succeeded on their own merits or because Google stacked the deck in its favor, using exclusive contracts and anticompetitive tactics to smother any potential competition.

The Clock is Ticking: What Comes Next?

The next six months will be a defining chapter in this saga. The DOJ has already laid out its plan for remedies, and the upcoming discovery phase will see Google’s internal documents exposed to even greater scrutiny. Expect a trove of emails and memos that are likely to paint a far less flattering picture of Google’s strategies than their PR team would prefer. Then comes the mini-trial, where witnesses will take the stand, more details will emerge, and Google will try to argue that its “solutions” should be enough to satisfy the court.

But don’t forget: this isn’t the only legal headache Google is facing. There’s another antitrust trial looming, this one focused on their advertising software. The stakes? More potential monopolization charges. These cases are interconnected, and the outcomes could influence one another, meaning that a win or loss in one could spill over into the other. And while Google’s strategy might be to keep fighting each battle and hope for reversals at higher courts, these interconnected cases are starting to form a web of legal peril that even Google’s vast resources might struggle to untangle.

Lobbying, Political Allies, and Google’s Long Game

Of course, Google isn’t just sitting back and waiting for its fate to be decided in courtrooms. Its political maneuvering is in full swing, with the company working tirelessly to influence the very environment in which these legal battles are being fought. Advisors to Vice President Kamala Harris have deep ties to Google, and the company enjoys significant influence with Senate Republicans, who confirm judicial appointments. Google’s hope? That it can subtly reshape the regulatory and judicial landscape to its favor before the courts come down too hard.

But this isn’t the 2010s anymore. Google’s invincibility cloak is fraying. Congress, for all its dysfunction, isn’t entirely asleep at the wheel, and the public has started to sour on Big Tech’s unchecked power. The DOJ’s efforts have bipartisan support, and any obvious political maneuvering to defang the case could backfire spectacularly—especially with judges who have been knee-deep in this case for years and won’t appreciate any sudden attempts to tilt the scales.

The Irreversible Shifts: Antitrust’s Resurgence and Google’s Tarnished Legacy

No matter how hard Google fights, there are two tectonic shifts they can’t reverse. First, antitrust law is back in vogue. For decades, Big Tech operated in a sort of regulatory no man’s land, assuming that no one would ever seriously challenge their dominance. But those days are over. Whether it’s Google, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple, the era of freewheeling monopolistic growth is being questioned, and future monopolistic practices will be met with intense scrutiny.

Second, and perhaps more damaging for Google’s long-term reputation, is that it will forever be marked as an illegal monopolist. For a company that once marketed itself as a scrappy, ethical upstart with the motto “Don’t be evil,” this is the bitterest pill to swallow. Regardless of its technological achievements or future innovations, Google’s brand has been tainted. The public, the courts, and even some within its own industry now see Google as less of a groundbreaking innovator and more of a predatory giant that used its market power to crush competitors and stifle innovation.

In a way, this represents the ultimate irony. The company that once defined itself by its moral superiority now finds itself in the same league as the robber barons of old. Google may not disappear anytime soon, but the myth of its ethical, democratic ethos has. It turns out, even tech giants can’t outrun the shadow of their own monopolistic behavior.

Subscribe to Reclaim the Net