Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
COMMENTARY: No, Google is not monopoly
editor's pick

COMMENTARY: No, Google is not monopoly

  • 0

On Oct.  20, the U.S. 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 U.S. 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:

COMMENTARY: Threat of historical ignorance
COMMENTARY: Connor chasing people away from Christ

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.

COMMENTARY: Not voting not an option

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 U.S. government is really interested in eliminating monopolies, it might start with the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. 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.

Google, not so much.

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.



Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

There is the #HATETrump crowd -- and the rest of us. People keep asking what’s going to happen next. One “expert” on one of CNN’s programs beg…

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alerts

Breaking News