The current trial to potentially divide up Google is another unwarranted governmental overreach into the free market. One of the many reasons that libertarians believe in minimal government intrusion into the economy is that it discourages competition and innovation. While the government believes that Google has become a monopoly in the search business, the ultimate goal should be to let the free market decide if other browsers and search engines offer anything superior.
The antitrust lawsuit against Google by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to dismantle the tech giant on the grounds that it has “monopolized the internet search market.” This is nothing but an overreach that shatters the very pillars of a free and competitive marketplace.
The marketplace needs to be free to regulate itself according to the laws of supply and demand, competition, and consumer choice. With Google, it has succeeded by offering additional quality services that consumers voluntarily support. Google might have a handful of other issues, such as data collection and privacy, but its success is a testament to its innovative abilities and usefulness to consumers, not any coercive or monopolistic power. The government’s bid to break up Google is based on a faulty understanding of market forces.
The DOJ argument that Google has engaged in anti-competitive practices is dispelled by the fact that Google’s dominance has been achieved through constant innovation and consumer preference, not by means of illegal or unethical measures. Google services—such as search and Chrome—have evolved to maintain the pace with changing consumer needs, reflective of a constantly evolving market in which new firms can still compete and thrive. Their inclusion of AI into their searches is one such innovation that consumers not only welcomed, but desired to be part of their search browser.
The proposed remedies the DOJ suggests—such as forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser or license its search data to competitors—would be not only ineffective but also harmful. They would stifle innovation by placing undue regulatory burdens on both Google and its competitors.
The intervention of the government is bound to lead to a situation where Google will be compelled to operate in an environment of regulation that intrudes into its process of innovating and adapting to new technologies such as AI. Google’s proposed solution—to comply with the court decision without submitting to the government blanket authority over product design—is a preferable option, when faced with this level of coercion. Google recognizes that there will have to be some response to the court’s decision but still must allow the company to innovate and compete.
By allowing Google to keep its business within a close compliance framework, the market remains free enough to function, and competition and innovation can remain the dominant factor. In short, the Google breakup trial is the quintessential government overreach that will have a detrimental impact on the free market. The market must be allowed to govern itself through competition and consumer choice, not by authoritarian government action. Not only do these kinds of interventions do nothing to address the matters at hand, but they can also have the effect of stifling innovation and competition, the lifeblood of a well-functioning and vibrant free market economy.
