'Google is a monopolist' says US judge in ruling on exclusivity deals to get Google Search on all your platforms all the time

A US judge has ruled that Google violated antitrust laws when it used exclusivity agreements to maintain a monopoly with its search engine.

In the court ruling, District Judge Amit Mehta said: «Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States—general search services and general text advertising—through its exclusive distribution agreements.»

Those «exclusive distribution agreements» are deals such as those Google struck to be selected as the default search engine for various platforms, including through Apple's Safari browser, Firefox, Android phones, and some US carriers.

«The default is extremely valuable real estate,» Mehta's ruling states.

One of the plaintiff's experts, Dr Whinston, found that «50% of all queries in the United States are run through the default search access points covered by the challenged distribution agreements.» Google did not dispute this claim.

In a lengthy 286-page ruling, judge Mehta lays out that not only does Google have a monopoly, it looked to engage in practices to exclude or maintain its monopoly, i.e. through exclusivity deals and uncompetitive ad pricing. It also holds Google was unable to offer justifications for said exclusivity deals.

«After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.

»Google's distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects," it continues. It also states it uses that monopoly to charge «supracompetitive prices for general search text ads», i.e. those above sustainable market prices. It says Google was able to «increase text ad prices without any meaningful competitive constraint.»

It's not all bad for Google. The court also