When we started the Inside Google Project in 2008, we envisioned the day when a judge would rule that Google was a monopoly. Yesterday Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” The judge ruled that the billions of dollars Google paid to make its search engine the default search engine in consumer devices prevented its rivals from competing.
Back in 2008, Google was widely known as a den of geniuses trying to make the world a better place. Google didn’t make its first political contribution until 2008. Consumer Watchdog was a lone wolf in challenging the giant over its privacy policies, search dominance, and the creepy side of its technological control.
Why did we take on Google? Here was a company whose motto was “Don’t be evil,” had 98% of the Internet search business, knew all our browsing habits due to its Google Analytics business, and sucked up every piece of our private information it could with abandon. It even sent drivers through our neighborhoods to collect data from unencrypted wi-fi networks in what became known as the Wi-Spy scandal. We made it our mission to expose and confront Google over its abuses, because if someone didn’t stand up to the behemoth doing evil, no one would ever be able to put the genie back in the bottle.
For eight years, we outed Google again and again, forcing it to change direction. Our “Don’t Be A Glasshole” report showed how dangerous Google’s wearable computer Glass was to our privacy, how it could tape people’s ATM pin numbers, record sensitive conversations and its data be easily hacked – which helped to force Glass off the market. We sued over Wi-Spy. Our petition to the FTC forced the largest privacy fine at the time on Google for violating its own privacy policies. We hired mimes to shadow Google executive Eric Schmidt around Capitol Hill in Google “Track Suits” to demonstrate the need for Do Not Track legislation.
Views of Google changed over time, as did views of the rest of the Internet oligarchy, what we call FAANG – Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google. Other members of the club are similarly being prosecuted by the new wave of righteous anti-trust regulators and prosecutors at the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department
Judge Mehta still must decide the remedy for the monopolization, which almost certainly will be Google cannot use its billions to buy a default distribution advantage on cellphones and consumer devices. This sends a signal to the rest of FAANG that they cannot continue to use their money and power to continue their respective monopolies.
What we picked up from around the water cooler in the Inside Google days was that Google knew it had a monopoly and it was only time before it would be broken up. That’s one reason it split its companies into subsidiaries under Alphabet. The other thing was that FAANG carefully divided up the world so as not to step into the other’s monopoly. Facebook had the social network. Apple had the cool devices. Google had Search. Amazon had the retail store. The monopolists never tread too far into the others’ monopoly.
Judge Mehta’s decision is a signal that FAANG will likely be less dominate in the next decade than it was in the last. That should mean lower prices and more choices for American consumers.
