The game “Monopoly,” originally named for its meaning of “monopoly,” involves players starting with equal funds and moving along a board by rolling dice. When landing on a property, players can purchase it, build houses, and collect rent from opponents. Ultimately, the game ends with one winner, where the player owning the most properties can bankrupt others. This illustrates the terrifying aspect of market monopoly—winners take all while losers face bankruptcy and elimination.
Understanding the true significance of “Monopoly” as the harm caused by market monopolies explains why both the United States and the European Union have imposed heavy penalties on monopolistic companies in recent years. Governments aim to protect a fair competitive environment among businesses. Monopolies leave little room for other operators to survive. From a macro perspective, monopolistic practices not only fail to contribute to the overall ecosystem but also reduce the per capita GDP and overall development of a nation.
According to a report by Reuters on October 8, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may request a judge to force Google’s parent company, Alphabet, to divest certain business segments. A ruling in August declared that Google holds an illegal monopoly with an 80% share of the online search advertising market.
The DOJ has proposed a possible drastic measure, preparing to offer Google’s search index and AI models to competitors for study, in order to curb Google’s exclusive monopoly on AI data. Google is currently actively contesting the court’s ruling but seems to be struggling to find more arguments to refute it.
Google is entangled in three lawsuits with the DOJ, including the ongoing Ad Tech case. Further reports will continue to follow this situation.
The DOJ has proposed several remedies requiring Google to amend its current business model. This includes ending the default setting of Google Chrome as the search engine on new phones or computers. Google pays up to $26.3 billion annually to manufacturers, including Apple, to maintain its search engine dominance. This remedy would allow Americans to avoid being bound to Google for their searches.
San Francisco Judge James Donato ordered, based on the jury’s verdict, that Google must allow more users to download apps and cannot restrict users from making payment transactions with Google’s third-party competitors. Fortnite developer Epic Games sued Google in 2020, accusing it of monopolizing consumer freedom to download apps on the Android system and interfering with consumer payment methods. In December 2023, Epic persuaded a jury in court to rule that Google cannot control the distribution and payment features of app storefronts, stating that Google stifled the development of game developers and compressed profits.
Judge Donato’s injunction prohibits Google from restricting app payment methods for three years and limits revenue-sharing arrangements for the Google Play Store and apps.
Court rulings on Google’s advertising monopoly case and Google Play Store monopoly case have been issued, and the DOJ even suggested remedial measures to prevent Google from facing exorbitant damages. Google is still preparing to appeal, primarily arguing that its services are based on consumer benefits, asserting it does not engage in monopolistic behavior.
Yelp, a food-search website, strongly supports the court’s ruling and has also sued Google, seeking to distance itself from Google’s search engine. Users typically search for food on Google and then check Yelp for reviews, but Google has limited traffic and captured internet users from thematic search websites.
Echoing the earlier introduction, the prototype of Monopoly is the “Landlord’s Game,” invented by Elizabeth J. Magie Phillips. The game is fundamentally a reminder to players of the potential poverty that excessive greed may bring. In the business market, many capitalists spare no expense to monopolize all businesses.
Google is a search tool that most people rely on, and when Google prioritizes commercial profit, it is not merely a matter of suppressing local businesses or undermining competitors. It concerns the original purpose of users seeking genuine and useful information, rather than merely seeing search results pushed to the top due to payments. Excessive commercialization harms not the businesses, but the internet users who expect Google to bring convenience to their lives.
It is hoped that the Google monopoly case will prompt Google to make changes, ensuring that internet searches do not become a tool for a select few利益者.
Anti Trust
Anti-Monopoly
Fortnite
Google Monopoly Case
Judge James Donato
Anti-Monopoly Law
Extended Reading
Epic Games Cuts 16% of Staff, Admits: Developing a Virtual Universe in Fortnite is Unrealistic
Epic Games Gains Another Client! Nike May Bring Air Max Shoes into Fortnite!