Skip to main content

US v. Google: all the news from the search antitrust showdown

See all Stories

A
We’re nearing the end.

Moving on from Chrome acquisitions, we’re in the final section, starting with the state attorney. Michael Schwartz is arguing for an education campaign fund that would address “habit, inertia, and brand recognition” barriers that prevent rivals from attracting users and competing with Google. Mehta asks some practical questions: how much money should be put into the fund, and who decides what the campaign to make people aware of alternatives looks like? The attorney says at a high level, it would be Mehta — who doesn’t seem thrilled about that. “I assure you, I am not qualified to tell you what is a good marketing campaign and what is not,” he says.

Schwartz says a committee could handle the details; for now, he offers a somewhat muddled explanation of how much money Google might need to contribute, reaching up to nine figures. Mehta asks if the whole idea is legal, and Schwartz tries to cite an AT&T antitrust decision — Mehta doesn’t bite. “Can you point to any case where there is a directive to a monopolist to out of pocket make an expenditure?” he asks. “We’re talking about nine figures at least.” Schwartz says all he’s got is AT&T. “The power of defaults is real,” Mehta says, but “that’s a different question than whether I can legally grant the remedy you’re asking.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.