INTERVIEW: A respected US lawyer told Mobile World Live (MWL) a recent court ruling against Google relating to search engines on mobile phones shows the nations’ antitrust laws remain relevant in the modern world, predicting legal actions against big technology companies will eventually lead to greater self-regulation.
Robin Nunn highlighted the US had not truly been down the road of splitting a large technology company since Bell Systems in the early 1980s, but argued the antitrust laws employed are as solid today after a court found Google guilty of monopolistic activity in the case concluded in August.
Nunn (pictured, left) specialises in complex commercial litigation including fraud, anti-corruption, consumer protection, mass tort and product liability, along with cybersecurity and data privacy, and financial and securities.
The experienced lawyer does not expect the court ruling to result in Google being broken up as Bell Systems was, instead tipping the company to work with the Department of Justice (DoJ) on potential remedies and, ultimately begin to regulate itself to fend off future legal action.
Nunn noted the scale of the US court ruling that Google had established a monopoly in internet search is far greater than the last major trial of its kind when Microsoft was targeted in the late 1990s.
“Google is now, you know, nearly seven-times larger than Microsoft was, so this is a really big deal,” she told MWL.
Nunn is sceptical of any real resolution coming now the DoJ has been tasked by the court with remedying the Google situation. She noted the same action against Microsoft “didn’t really go anywhere”, with several years of to-and-fro with US authorities ultimately doing little to reshape the company.
There is also the fact that Google’s search browser is not the default on devices from Apple, one of the phone makers named in the legal case against the search company.
Nunn noted the DoJ process is likely to take some time, tipping Google to flex its significant legal weight to challenge any proposed remedies to its monopolistic status.
She said Google is not the only big-name technology company on the DoJ’s radar, with Meta Platforms and Amazon also piquing its interest. However, Nunn is adamant a Bell Systems-type break up move against any of the companies is unlikely, with the government rarely taking the step in the 40-years since.
“I think the market…the industry will take over here and I think that tech companies will begin to self-regulate, perhaps not entering into some of these exclusive agreements that were complained about” in the recent Google case.
Nunn added big technology players “will naturally divest and naturally start separating things out way before this decision will be finalised in the coming years”.
Fit for purpose
For Nunn, the DoJ’s win against Google is reassuring in terms of the continuing suitability of US antitrust legislation.
She noted the court ruling debunks a perception “the technology is going faster than the law can keep up” and enjoys the fact “those same old-timey laws that were invented and drafted hundreds of years ago can still be applied to businesses today and make sense”.
“That’s quite an accomplishment.”
Nunn noted the case is also a win for the DoJ which, as a government agency, faces a bit of a Catch-22 in terms of being seen to either be outgunned by businesses or overpowering them.
The level of understanding achieved using current laws is another positive in Nunn’s opinion.
Recent years have seen some embarrassing moments involving US politicians and tech company leaders, including a famous incident in 2018 when Meta Platforms chief Mark Zuckerberg essentially had to explain what the internet is during a congressional hearing intended to grill the executive over his company’s practices.
Such interactions leave some concerns over the potential for non-technologists to issue rulings on big companies’ actions, but Nunn said the DoJ’s case against Google proved this can be overcome.
She highlighted the DoJ not only used existing competition laws in its fight with Google, but successfully conveyed the facts to an independent judge who agreed the search giant was breaking the law.
“I don’t know if that was necessarily a given. I think that what was going to come out of this lawsuit whether they were found to be operating in a monopoly or not, was a huge question mark.”
The decision in the DoJ’s favour “gives more credence and support” to the idea the department, like the nation’s laws, can do its job, having the “ability and the tools in their arsenal to take on big tech like this”.
Shifting approach
Nunn believes companies have smartened up in terms of the DoJ’s authority since the days of Bell Systems, resulting in businesses beginning to police themselves rather than wait for the government to step in when they reach tipping points involving their size and influence.
Bell Systems was certainly “the test case for what breaking up a company could look like”, she said, noting businesses now tend to try to anticipate any regulatory action and seize the initiative with voluntary remedies which give the DoJ less incentive to explore a split.
Nevertheless, Nunn does expect some limits and restrictions on Google’s search business, which raise questions over what the market could look like moving forward.
She predicts Google will drop some exclusive agreements, a move potentially extending beyond search into its dealings with device makers and browser developers.
“While I don’t think a breakup is going to happen, I think they’re going to do away with some of those distribution contracts and I think that that’s a great outcome for consumers”.
Any easing of Google’s grip on the market will be a boon to rival companies which Nunn notes may currently lack the resources, or incentive, to attempt to compete with the giant head-on.
Perhaps the biggest question remaining is that of timing: Nunn noted the DoJ is due to issue its decisions in August 2025, but expects challenges by Google to affect any implementation timeline.
Whether Google is ordered to restructure or does so voluntarily, the result should be a positive for US consumers by providing more options and access to alternative search tools.
Comments