• 

The courtroom clash between the United States Department of Justice and Google has entered its second day, marking a pivotal moment in the battle to establish whether the tech giant unlawfully wielded its influence to establish a monopoly over the internet search engine realm.

This trial stands as a litmus test for US antitrust legislation and could usher in profound transformations within the tech sector, redefining the way individuals interact with the online world.

At its core, this legal confrontation hinges on a central question: Did Google's position as the preeminent search engine for the majority of Americans take anti-competitive measures that left internet users with no viable alternatives?

On the first day of the trial, legal representatives for the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and a collection of states participating in the lawsuit accused Google of stifling competition through multi-billion-dollar agreements with corporate heavyweights like Apple and Samsung.

Kenneth Dintzer, the attorney representing the DoJ, claimed that Google expends approximately $10 billion annually on contracts designed to ensure its status as the default search engine on devices like iPhones. This practice, according to Dintzer, effectively cancels out meaningful competition and positions Google as the internet's gatekeeper.

Dintzer emphasized, "They knew these agreements crossed antitrust lines."

In response, Google, in its opening statement, offered insights into its strategy to counter these allegations.

John Schmidtlein, the company's lead attorney, argued that Google's dominance in online search — estimated by the government to command approximately 90% of the market share — is the result of its superior product compared to alternatives like Microsoft's Bing search engine.

Schmidtlein contended that consumers maintain the freedom to switch default settings with "a few easy clicks" and opt for other search engines at their discretion.

Read more: Google spends $10 bn a year to monopolize online searching: US DoJ

DoJ refutes Google's superiority claims

The DoJ then called on its first witness, Google's chief economist, Hal Varian. Over a two-hour testimony, Varian was presented with internal memos and documents from the early 2000s, revealing discussions regarding the strategic significance of search defaults.

In one internal communication, Varian cautioned against potential antitrust issues, urging discretion in both public and private discourse which greatly supports the DoJ's claims.

On the trial's second day, the Department of Justice called upon former Google executive Chris Barton, who had served in partnerships from 2004 to 2011, for questioning regarding the role of these partnerships in cementing Google's dominance in the market.

"As we recognized the opportunity for search on mobile phones, we began to build a product team," Barton recounted, according to Reuters.

Read more: Google’s salary data leaked; Racial, gender pay discrimination exposed

Throughout the trial's initial days, the US government has been able to demonstrate that Google recognized early on the importance of forging deals and securing its position as the default search engine on devices. The evidence, derived from documents and witnesses, has primarily focused on events over a decade ago when Google was allegedly first shaping agreements that facilitated its search engine monopoly.

Furthermore, the Department of Justice has asserted that Google was cognizant of potential antitrust violations and actively sought to obscure its actions. Prosecutors presented a document during the trial from an internal Google presentation on antitrust, which cautioned employees against mentioning terms like "market share" or "dominance".

This trial, expected to span a period of 10 weeks and feature an array of witnesses and internal Google documents, may ultimately unveil that monopolizing search has long stood as a paramount objective for the company. Judge Amit Mehta presides over the case, and notably, there is no jury involved in the trial.

Read more: UnHerd: How did Obama create the Google monster?