Friday, May 17, 2024
61.9 F

    Latest Posts

    United States Socialist Republic book by HG Goerner

    No, Google is Not a Monopoly



    By Thomas L. Knapp

    On October 20, the US Department of Justice — joined by 11 Republican state attorneys general — filed a civil lawsuit against Google, with the stated goal of stopping it from  “unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets.”

    The lawsuit is meritless on its face. Google is no monopoly. Nor could it plausibly become a monopoly without the full support of the global governments (the US is far from the first) who keep saying otherwise.

    A “monopoly” is defined as “[t]he exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market,” (Webster’s 1913 edition) or “a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller” (Wordnet).

    Google faces powerful and well-financed competitors in every market niche it serves. Some of the major ones:

    Microsoft competes with Google in search (Bing vs. Google), email (Outlook vs. Gmail), search advertising (Microsoft Advertising vs. AdSense/AdWords), cloud applications (Office vs. Docs/Sheets/etc.), and computer operating systems (Windows vs. ChromeOS).

    Apple competes with Google in desktop operating systems (OSX vs. ChromeOS) and phone operating systems (iOS vs. Android).

    Facebook and Twitter, among many others, compete with Google in advertising.

    Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu, among many others, compete with Google in digital media.

    Yes, Google does pretty well in those ongoing competitions, but there’s nothing wrong with that, nor any guarantee that it will always be so. The landscape is littered with the corpses of former supposed “monopolies” killed off by market competition, technological innovation, and changing consumer preferences, not by government action.

    The supposed point of antitrust legislation is to preserve competition and consumer choice, not to slap down winners  and prop up losers.

    I say “supposed point,” because the real purpose of antitrust legislation is, you guessed it, to slap down winners and prop up losers, at the expense of competition and consumer choice, and for the benefit of whichever political party needs a punching bag this week to put a shine on its peeling populist paint job.

    If the US government is really interested in eliminating monopolies, it might start with the US Copyright Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office before moving on to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Department of Justice itself.

    All those entities are ACTUAL monopolies, with which competition is legally banned, and which consumers are required by law to patronize and finance.

    Thomas Knapp -- Photo Credit Avens O'Brien

    Photo by Avens O’Brien

    Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.


    The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal


    Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE


    - Advertisement -


    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Notify of

    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    3 years ago

    Google is a de facto monopoly, in that it has an overwhelming share of some markets and uses its power to help shut out competition or even block dissenting opinions, allegedly illegally in some cases.

    Angry White Male
    Angry White Male
    3 years ago

    Here’s some help. Publish real analysis, not opinions of the uninformed and/or those with an agenda. Sophisticated news will grow your readership, pablum will get you tossed into the trash pile. Good luck to you, hoping this is helpful.

    Citizen Reporter
    3 years ago

    In case you hadn’t noticed, that is an opinion column. I realize that most other regional newspapers don’t make such differentiation, but we do here. For the record, this moderator doesn’t agree with that COLUMN either.

    Angry White Male
    Angry White Male
    3 years ago

    Thomas, this is a sophomoric argument. Yes, whether Google is a monopoly is a complex argument but not for any of the reasons you state.

    Citizens Journal: please improve the quality of your articles, or change your tag line to “proudly attempting to reduce the quality of political (and religious) discourse in Ventura County.”

    Latest Posts


    Don't Miss


    To receive the news in your inbox

    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x