\n
![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/GettyImages-1920932606-e1722976163441.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Google<\/a> had a bad day on Monday. A federal judge ruled in the first major antitrust case<\/a> against big tech in over two decades that Google has an illegal monopoly on the search market. As a result of its pervasive presence on phones and browsers<\/a>, the tech company was able to hike advertisement rates with few consequences. According to the Department of Justice<\/a>, Google paid $26 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine for the masses.<\/p>\n \u201cGoogle\u2019s distribution agreements foreclose a substantial portion of the general search services market and impair rivals\u2019 opportunities to compete,\u201d judge Amit Mehta said in the case\u2019s 286-page ruling<\/a>.<\/p>\n With Google\u2019s $2 trillion parent company Alphabet a force to be reckoned with in the tech world,\u00a0<\/p>\n the outcome of the case is bound to cascade beyond Google and its users. As the dust settled on the case, tech and antitrust experts said the lawsuit could have plenty of ripples on entities in the tech industry\u2014for better or for worse. Here are the winners and losers they identified.<\/p>\n While the DOJ is the obvious victor in the case\u2019s ruling, the Federal Trade Commission\u2014which is currently embroiled in lawsuits with other big tech companies like Apple<\/a>, and readying antitrust probes<\/a> into Nvidia<\/a>, Microsoft<\/a>, and OpenAI\u2014could also benefit from the case, according to George Hay, a senior law professor at Cornell University. The FTC\u2019s approach now is a departure from the era of the 1990s and 2000s during a period of rapid innovation, when the regulatory body took years<\/a> to crack down on the meteoric rise of tech monopolies.<\/p>\n \u201cIt suggests that the court is willing to take on a dominant firm and explain why it\u2019s so dominant and attribute some antitrust liability to some reason for dominance,\u201d he told Fortune<\/em>.<\/p>\n But despite the Justice Department getting a favorable ruling, Adam Kovacevich, former Google policy director and founder of the tech coalition Chamber of Progress, told Fortune <\/em>that tech will continue to win big, likely crowning Microsoft as the case\u2019s biggest winner.<\/p>\n \u201cThe thing about big tech antitrust crusades is that the big winner, many times, is another big tech company,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n As a result of the suit, Google could be prohibited from bidding in default deals, Kovacevich said, leaving the door open for other search engines to take advantage. Because of Microsoft\u2019s power and influence in the industry\u2014to the tune of a $3 trillion market capitalization\u2014it should have no problem securing its search engine Bing as the default for some major platforms, Kovacevich argued.<\/p>\n Microsoft has openly expressed this as a goal. CEO Satya Nadella testified in Google\u2019s antitrust case in 2023, saying how hard it was<\/a> to strike a deal with Apple<\/a> to replace Google as its default browser. Though Bing lacks a robust usership compared to Google, Nadella promised in his testimony the company would be able to invest more in the engine.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also a symbolic victory for Microsoft, which, 23 years ago, lost the last major federal antitrust case. In 2000, the DOJ ruled Microsoft violated antitrust laws<\/a> through the restrictions it put on PC manufacturers. But Microsoft came out relatively unscathed: After George W. Bush became president in 2001, the company had the opportunity to settle the suit<\/a>. Microsoft was also able to avoid splitting into two companies, the original request of the judge. But despite dodging a bullet in the remedy stage of the case, there\u2019s still a desire from the juggernaut to stay on top and give other big tech companies a taste of what it experienced, Kovacevich said.<\/p>\n \u201cBasically for 20 years now, Microsoft\u2019s position has been, \u2018We didn\u2019t agree with the government, but this is what they did to us, and so they should do the same thing to Google,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Microsoft declined Fortune<\/em>\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n With the potential for big tech to be humbled, Luther Lowe, head of public policy at startup accelerator Y Combinator, believes the impending remedies could benefit tech startups<\/a> unable to previously compete with Google\u2019s massive resources.<\/p>\n \u201cThis ruling could significantly reshape the competitive landscape to benefit \u2018little tech\u2019 by reducing Google\u2019s gatekeeping power & creating more open competition in search & digital advertising,\u201d he wrote on X<\/a>.<\/p>\n Kovacevich isn\u2019t so sure. While smaller search engine sites like DuckDuckGo may have less competition, depending on the remedies from the case, it\u2019s a long shot for it to be able to increase its market share. Because these smaller tech companies lack Microsoft and Google\u2019s funding, their products simply aren\u2019t as strong or user-friendly.<\/p>\n \u201cBut how do you force consumers to choose a certain inferior search engine?\u201d Kovacevich said.<\/p>\n DuckDuckGo told Fortune<\/em> in a statement it does offer a competitive search engine<\/a> alternative and applauded the DOJ\u2019s decision in the antitrust case.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve passed a key milestone, but there\u2019s still a lot of history to be written and Google will do anything it can to get in the way of progress which is why we hope to see a robust remedies trial that can really dig into all the details, propose an array of remedies that will actually work, and set up a monitoring body to administer them,\u201d the company said.<\/p>\n The ruling of Google\u2019s suit could have a big impact on Samsung<\/a> and Apple, which have shelled out on deals to have Google as their default search engines. Apple paid $20 billion<\/a> in 2022 alone to have Google as Safari\u2019s default search bar. Mehta argued in the hearing those agreements were detrimental<\/a> to competition, accounting for 94.9% of the search market. Following the ruling, the future of these deals are unclear.<\/p>\n But while both tech companies\u2014and Apple in particular\u2014may appear to be most directly impacted by the outcome of the antitrust case, the biggest loser is likely Mozilla, Kovacevich said. When users type in search queries into Mozilla\u2019s Firefox browser, it reroutes them to Google. Mozilla\u2019s deal with Google is incredibly lucrative, making up $510 million of its $593 million in revenue, according to its 2021-2022 financial statements<\/a>. It also heavily relies on Google\u2019s participation in bidding wars over default deals, according to Kovacevich. If Google is no longer able to participate in default deals, there\u2019s less incentive for replacement candidates like Microsoft to want to pay as much for platforms to use Bing. That could impact Mozilla\u2019s financial dependence on Google, with lower bids and less revenue for Mozilla.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat Mozilla was benefiting from was the bidding war between Google, and so I think that is almost certainly going to go away,\u201d Kovacevich said.<\/p>\n Mozilla said it\u2019s closely reviewing the case to examine its impact on the company.<\/p>\n \u201cMozilla has always championed competition and choice online, particularly in search,\u201d a spokesperson told Fortune<\/em> in a statement<\/a> on Monday. \u201cFirefox continues to offer a range of search options, and we remain committed to serving our users\u2019 preferences while fostering a competitive market.\u201d<\/p>\n With rumblings of potential default search engine changes, there\u2019s also potential for users perfectly happy with Google\u2019s massive search bar presence to be inconvenienced. And the outsized consequence could be that people grow frustrated with other platforms, and leave them altogether.<\/p>\n There\u2019s past precedent for a user revolt. In 2014, Mozilla switched its Firefox default search tool from Google to Yahoo<\/a> as part of a $375 million five-year-deal. The quality of the experience with Yahoo<\/a> paled in comparison to its competitor, however, and users simply left the browser. Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker called it a \u201cfailed\u201d bet, and by the end of 2017, Mozilla had reverted its default browser<\/a> back to Google\u00a0<\/p>\n Precedent and evidence aside, the shakeout to determine the true winners and losers of the case will take months, Hay warned. Google will appeal the decision, Kent Walker, president of global affairs said in a statement to Fortune<\/em>, <\/strong>with a separate DOJ hearing to discuss remedies scheduled for September. Until then, Google has \u201cno real incentive to change behavior,\u201d according to Hay.<\/p>\n \u201cNothing\u2019s going to happen for quite a while,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\nThe winners<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The losers<\/strong><\/h2>\n