Google was declared an illegal monopoly yesterday, the culmination of a 10-week trial that began last year.
Here are the main reactions from Search Network advertisers:
Google’s appeal and the future legal battle
Julie Bacchini, president and founder of Neptune Moon, emphasizes that although the court decision declaring Google a monopoly is important, the real impact will be felt during the repair phase and Google’s inevitable appeal.
- “Google will appeal (and they said they would in their comically bad statement regarding the decision) and it will be a slow process. But it is the repair phase that will ultimately determine what this decision will actually mean in practical terms.”
- “Moreover, this case was just as much about setting the stage for the Google advertising case that will go to trial in September. This case has a LOT of records that will likely be used in the next trial.
- “Monopolistic behavior has gone virtually unchecked in many industries since the Reagan administration and that may not have been such a good idea. These cases start trying to act accordingly. The App Store cases point in the same direction.
- “If Sherman’s antitrust law had been enforced for even the last 25 years, the business landscape would be very different. It wasn’t and we got what we got.
- “Also, to be fair, Google is like any other publicly traded company today: its main goal is to make sure it meets analyst expectations every quarter. That’s it. And I think we often forget that. Their decisions all come back to this core. And what that pushes them to do can make them seem like a pretty evil big business.
- “There are many possibilities to appeal, I agree. But I definitely think the testimony they got and the internal Google documents are going to be a tough hill for Google to climb in the Ads case. So I can’t help but wonder if this case was more about making sure that one lasts? »
Oscar Ford, CEO and PPC expert, finds the ruling’s development fascinating and expects a prolonged legal battle due to Google’s appeal. :
- “Google is appealing the decision, so this will last for a while. I’m not sure of the outcome, but to break up an existing monopoly, surely the only option is to break it up into separate companies? »
- “Google’s response to the decision is amusing, but they are right: They created the best search engine and nothing else has come close in decades.”
Chris Ridley, Head of Paid Media, predicts a Google shopping-like resolution in 2017:
- “What I see happening is an echo of what we saw happen to Google Shopping in 2017. A similar EU decision regarding Google Shopping which led to Google opening its Shopping area to comparison shopping services ( CSS) third parties, which have been granted. a 20% reduction on cost per click (CPC) to ensure they can compete fairly.
- “This could pave the way for Google to introduce text ad comparison services into the Google text ad market to dismantle Google’s monopoly in the text ad market, which could also benefit from a discount similar on CPCs, as part of a move by Google to encourage competition on its SERPs.
Market Dynamics and Google Competitors
B2B SaaS marketing consultant Chris Lloyd points out that Google’s market share is declining due to its inability to innovate:
- “I think we’re already seeing their decline, and it’s not due to regulatory decisions. Google has been losing market share for a few years now. Quite simply, they cannot build and innovate and will continue to be dominated by Perplexity, OpenAI, Meta, Apple.
Sam Tomlinson, executive vice president and digital strategist, criticizes the legal reasoning in the 286-page decision, particularly the market definition which he says will not hold up on appeal.
- “The market definition was absolutely insane to me – I don’t think it’s something that will be upheld on appeal”
- “It’s not like today’s winner is always tomorrow’s winner. Google even admitted it (and the court agreed) in this decision, where they pointed out that Google had innovated massively, at great expense, despite its “monopoly”
- “Every other firm, hedge fund, investment bank and PE fund is doing the exact same thing – that’s why it seems ridiculous. This is neither good nor bad, it is just profit seeking, because profit is an existential imperative for any business. »
Navah Hopkins, brand evangelist and PPC influencer at Optmyzr, is disappointed that the US has failed to make search advertising a separate market:
- “I am disappointed that the United States is not able to argue that search advertising is a market (I understand there is another case in September, but the decision makes clear that the information does not ‘was simply not presented).’
- “The fact that this thing started in 2020 and that’s when PMax really started to take hold is a testament to the diversification that was clearly a priority for Google. As the ruling states, “search text ads are a monopoly,” but search advertising was not. PMax gives Google the cover it needs to continue performing searches without violating search text ad monopoly rules.
- “That Microsoft was presented as a serious competitor seemed disingenuous. Although it’s interesting to see how CPCs have evolved one after the other (i.e. the market has driven up costs, not Google itself…which I’m skeptical of)”
Ethical and practical concerns
Sarah Stemen, paid search specialist, discusses her disillusionment with Google and doubts that significant sanctions will be imposed:
- “I need to stop fooling myself into thinking that Google is great because they built my career. It’s a capitalist company that has lost sight of all values and it sucks.
- “I think we all remember Microsoft and I’d like to think that’s the result, but I don’t actually think that any penalty of any significant difference will occur, particularly under our administration and our system current judiciary.”
Marketing strategist Reid Thomas observes that the US decision aligns closely with the EU mandate and questions the meaning of that mandate:
- “Our views are all very US-centric. Isn’t this decision very aligned with the EU decision from a few years ago that mandated search engine choice?”
- “My question is: ‘What is a significant penalty?’ “. You can’t break Google like bells.
- “I also think it’s completely disingenuous to target distribution deals on the question, ‘If Google is so great, why are they paying?’ » and the answer is: because it is a competitive market and others might also pay.
The diverse opinions highlight the complexity of the issue and the ruling’s profound implications for the technology industry, digital advertising and antitrust law.
As the legal process continues and potential solutions are considered, many in the industry are closely watching how this decision could reshape the future of search and digital advertising.