CHARLESTON — State attorneys general, including West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, along with the Justice Department have proposed a plan to end Google’s monopoly over internet search engines and to restore competition to benefit consumers.
In December 2020, Morrisey joined a bipartisan coalition of 38 state AGs in a lawsuit alleging Google illegally maintains its monopoly power over general search engines through anticompetitive contracts and conduct. The multistate lawsuit was a companion to an earlier federal antitrust lawsuit the Justice Department filed in October 2020.
In a landmark decision this August, a Washington, D.C., federal district court judge ruled Google violated federal antitrust laws by illegally maintaining a monopoly in online search and search text ads. At issue now are the remedies the court will impose to end Google’s improper conduct that has stifled competition and harmed consumers, and the steps necessary to restore competition for the benefit of consumers.
Morrisey
| File photo
“This is a big win for consumers and the free market — vigorous competition protects consumers and helps the economy thrive,” Morrisey said. “We have maintained all along in the case that we need to bring back digital search competition, a key element for consumers to make educated and rational decisions.
“Corporations have a right to thrive, but they must not do so at the expense of severely and unlawfully limiting consumer choice. Increased competition provides improved privacy protections, more targeted results and greater opportunities.
“All companies, including big ones like Google, have to play by the rules – no exceptions for huge companies.”
The proposed final judgment filed with the court seeks to end Google’s monopoly and restore competition in several ways. The proposal ends Google’s search distribution contracts and revenue sharing agreements by prohibiting Google from paying to be the initial default search engine on any phone, device, or browser. Google is also required to share its data and information — obtained through its monopoly power — with rivals to improve the competitive choices available to consumers. This data will be shared in a manner that safeguards personal privacy and security.
Additionally, the proposal seeks the divestiture of Chrome, the Google browser through which a significant percentage of all Google searches are made. Coupled with that request will be provisions for additional divestitures, including the Android operating system, if Google fails to comply with specific remedies or if the remedies prove ineffective.
Also, the proposal prohibits Google from foreclosing competition or self-preferencing through its ownership or control of other products — including Android. Google cannot make Google Search or Google AI mandatory on Android devices, interfere with rival distribution, degrade rival quality or leverage distributors to preference Google.
The proposal also suggests Google must also give publishers the ability to opt out of having their data collected by Google for training Google’s AI models or used in Generative AI answers.
The states alone also propose a public education campaign funded by Google to inform consumers what Google did, why it is illegal, and what choices they actually have in search engines. The campaign may include reasonable, short-term payments from Google to users who try non-Google search engines.
The final order establishes a five-member technical committee to implement, monitor, and enforce the remedies for 10 years. A hearing on the proposed remedies is currently scheduled to begin on April 22, 2025, and conclude by May 2.
In addition to West Virginia, the coalition included Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case number 1:20-cv-3010