Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has secured a major victory against Google, with a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling that the company’s anticompetitive business practices and monopoly represent violations of the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law.
In 2020, Attorney General Paxton sued Google for maintaining a monopoly over general internet search and text-based advertisements alongside the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Justice and a multistate coalition of 11 state attorneys general. When the lawsuit was filed, Google controlled nearly 90% of all search queries in the United States and almost 95% on mobile devices. After years of litigation, the court concluded that Google engaged in illegal conduct to dominate the online search services industry through anticompetitive practices such as exclusive distribution agreements designed to undermine competition and secure its monopoly.
“A federal court ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly by exploiting its dominance to squash competition and hamper innovation. Google engaged in anticompetitive trade practices to monopolize internet search engines and advertisements,” said Attorney General Paxton. “I’m proud to lead this case and deliver another major win against Big Tech.”
The federal court’s decision explained: “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.”
Attorney General Paxton has led major initiatives to hold dominant technology companies accountable. Recently, Attorney General Paxton secured an historic $1.4 billion settlement with Meta over its unauthorized capture of personal biometric data, representing the largest settlement ever obtained by an action brought by a single State. Similarly, Google and other technology companies have repeatedly settled with Texas after investigations and lawsuits regarding potentially unlawful use of personal data or anticompetitive practices.
Original source can be found here.