When the Justice Department initiated its antitrust trial against Google this month, it sent ripples not just through the tech industry, but also among everyday consumers like you and me. The questions raised go beyond mere market dynamics; they touch upon the very nature of consumer choice and freedom in our digital age.

The DoJ is unhappy with Google because they say Google is using its power to control and limit competition in searching and advertising. Specifically, the DoJ doesn’t like that Google makes deals to be the go-to search engine on different devices and websites, which they believe reduces choices and innovations for consumers.

At the heart of the DoJ's case lies a disturbing shift from a focus on "consumer welfare" to "harm to competition." This ideological pivot is not just an academic dispute among legal scholars -- it has real-world implications. If the DoJ succeeds, it will undermine a cornerstone of American antitrust policy, dramatically altering how businesses operate and how you, as a consumer, benefit from market competition.

Let's delve into the merits, or lack thereof, in the DoJ’s argument.

1. Where is the Consumer Harm?

The DoJ's case seems strangely silent on consumer harm. That’s probably because consumer preference for Google is by no means coerced but rather earned. According to Morning Consult, Google remains one of America’s most trusted brands. And for a good reason -- its search engine processes over 100,000 words per second, effectively facilitating billions of searches each day. The idea that Google's market position is somehow harming consumers by driving up prices or lowering quality is simply wrong. Despite an inflationary environment, the tech sector has recently seen product prices decline.

2. The Dynamics of a Fast-Changing Market

The argument that Google is stifling competition doesn’t hold water either. Take DuckDuckGo as an example: I was having coffee with my friend the other day, who was adamant that Google is killing competition. “What about DuckDuckGo?” I stated. “Its usage shot up by 215,000% from 2010 to 2021.” My friend paused. “Good point,” she admitted. “So, can others succeed too?” “Exactly,” I said. "Even with giants like Google, there's still room to grow if you find the right niche.” And just like that, my friend had to reconsider her stance. Sometimes, data speaks louder than opinions.

Additionally, generative AI platforms, such as ChatGPT, are reshaping the search industry. Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram are increasingly becoming the starting point for consumer queries. Such innovations prove that the DoJ’s attempt to freeze the market picture is at best incomplete and at worst misleading.

3. The Dangers of Government Interference

If the DoJ's case against Google succeeds, the implications could be troubling. Letting the government pick winners and losers could lead to unintended consequences that directly affect you and your data's safety.

A Call to Reconsider

The DoJ’s case may set a precedent that departs from safeguarding consumer welfare, thereby opening the floodgates for arbitrary regulatory action and allowing the government to weaponize antitrust laws to serve a political, rather than a public, interest.

So let us remember: When we consider reining in the giants of the tech world, we should first and foremost ask ourselves who stands to lose the most. In this case, it appears to be the everyday consumer. As we follow this landmark case, let's not forget what’s really at stake -- the preservation of a competitive market that benefits us all.

Shakira Jackson holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pittsburgh in History and Political Science. Her drive for community organizing feeds her passion for one day living in a world that enhances the fruitfulness of the earth and its inhabitants.

Image: Google