The recent ruling by a federal district judge to apply the "illegal monopoly" label to Google's search engine is bureaucratic and judicial overreach that establishes a dangerous precedent for free enterprise and innovation across all sectors of the economy.
Competition policy works best when it prioritizes consumers and innovation, not when it demonizes the size of companies for its own sake. Judge Amit Mehta's decision in U.S. et al. v. Google veers into the outdated belief that "big is inherently bad," a mindset that U.S. jurisprudence moved away from decades ago.
Although Mehta found that Google "has long been the best search engine" and that "competitive firms have not succeeded because of their inferior quality," he nevertheless concluded that the company engaged in anti-competitive behavior merely because of successful outcomes.
This heavy-handed approach has proved detrimental for consumers in the past, and it only amounts to a political win for an activist federal government and for Google competitors that simply haven't kept pace in the marketplace.
Collection
[
|
...
]