The Google antitrust remedy should extinguish surveillance, not democratize it

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the implications of Google's antitrust case against the DOJ Antitrust Division, in which Google was found to be a convicted monopolist. It explores the potential remedies the court could impose, such as conduct remedies, structural remedies like selling off parts of Google's business, and the risks of the case being dragged out through appeals. The article also criticizes the judge's rejection of the DOJ's argument that Google's monopoly harmed user privacy, and warns against the potential for competition law to be used to "democratize" commercial surveillance rather than to end it.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Google's Antitrust Case

1. What are the key points about Google's antitrust case against the DOJ?

• Google has been found guilty of being a convicted monopolist in an antitrust case brought by the DOJ
• This is a significant and unexpected development, as it was considered inconceivable just a few years ago
• The case was led by Jonathan Kanter, the head of the DOJ Antitrust Division, who has taken an aggressive approach to going after big tech companies
• The court now needs to decide what remedies to impose on Google, such as conduct remedies, structural remedies like selling off parts of the business, or a combination

2. What are the potential risks of Google dragging out the case through appeals?

• Google may try to delay the case for years through appeals, similar to tactics used by IBM and Microsoft in previous antitrust cases
• This involves outspending the DOJ on legal fees and hoping to run out the clock, especially if a new administration takes over and drops the case
• The article expresses concern that Google may try to influence the political process to get the case dropped, as happened with IBM and Microsoft

3. How does the judge's ruling on privacy concerns relate to the antitrust case?

• The judge rejected the DOJ's argument that Google's monopoly harmed user privacy by foreclosing the possibility of a rival that didn't rely on commercial surveillance
• The judge repeated "cherished and absurd canards" of the marketing industry, such as the idea that people like "relevant" advertising based on surveillance
• The article argues this is problematic, as Google's monopolization of the advertising market has enabled a global privacy crisis through its surveillance practices

[02] Concerns About Democratizing Commercial Surveillance

1. What are the author's concerns about using competition law to "democratize" commercial surveillance?

• Some competition theorists believe the goal should be to make companies better at violating human rights, like commercial surveillance, rather than banning such practices
• The article warns against this view, arguing that the goal should be to break up companies like Google to end their ability to undermine privacy laws, not to enable more companies to engage in surveillance
• There are proposals to make it easier for smaller companies to engage in invasive practices like "attribution" tracking, which the author sees as deeply problematic

2. How does the article critique the idea of creating a "user ID" system to enable more competition in surveillance?

• The article cites a UK market study that proposed creating a government-issued "user ID" to make it easier for companies to engage in attribution tracking and surveillance
• The author sees this as an extremely misguided idea, arguing that the fact advertisers want to surveil people does not justify enabling more companies to do so

3. What is the author's view on how antitrust enforcement should address commercial surveillance?

• The author argues that the goal of antitrust enforcement should be to make companies small enough to hold accountable through democratic laws, not to enable more companies to violate human rights like privacy
• The author wants to break up Google not to create more surveillance competitors, but to end its ability to undermine privacy laws and enable a global privacy crisis