Searching for a remedy that makes sense

Photo Credit: Getty

The Department of Justice recently sent itsproposed remedies to the federal judge who found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing web search. Specifically, the case explored the contracts Google makes with device makers like Apple, and web browsers like Firefox and Safari, and with wireless carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon to secure default status. Merits of the decision aside (it will be appealed by Google), the proposed remedies are alarming.

What's alarming practically, is that the remedies could harm consumers. The stated goal of US antitrust law is consumer welfare; that's important for the court to remember as it determines next steps. If the result of this trial leaves consumers worse off, then what are we even doing here? If consumers prefer and benefit from Google's superior search capabilities, any remedy that hurts that innovation, but doesn't produce equal or superior results from competitors, reveals the whole trial as counterproductive.

That's a very possible outcome with the remedies offered by the government. Forcing Google to spin off certain portions of its business might prevent search profits from subsidizing the consumer cost or the improvement of Google's products. Banning default contracts might mean that what comes preinstalled on devices isn't what consumers prefer and could create an inconvenience for them in in switching. Minor as that inconvenience may be, it still casts doubt on the justification for this costly suit. Mandatory data sharing from Google to its rivals raises privacy and security concerns, while also running afoul of what the judge said in the opinion about the defendant having no "duty to deal" with rivals.

The broader alarming point is that the proposed remedies show how far antitrust regulators have moved from the consumer welfare standard and towards punishing big, successful companies. Many of the suggestions would surely benefit Google's competitors, but picking winners and losers shouldn't be the aim of US competition law. Consumers shouldn't have to pay more, settle for mandated inconveniences, or be left with less innovation so that lesser firms can be advantaged.