US v. Google: all the news from the search antitrust showdown
See all Stories
Moving on from Chrome acquisitions, we’re in the final section, starting with the state attorney. Michael Schwartz is arguing for an education campaign fund that would address “habit, inertia, and brand recognition” barriers that prevent rivals from attracting users and competing with Google. Mehta asks some practical questions: how much money should be put into the fund, and who decides what the campaign to make people aware of alternatives looks like? The attorney says at a high level, it would be Mehta — who doesn’t seem thrilled about that. “I assure you, I am not qualified to tell you what is a good marketing campaign and what is not,” he says.
Schwartz says a committee could handle the details; for now, he offers a somewhat muddled explanation of how much money Google might need to contribute, reaching up to nine figures. Mehta asks if the whole idea is legal, and Schwartz tries to cite an AT&T antitrust decision — Mehta doesn’t bite. “Can you point to any case where there is a directive to a monopolist to out of pocket make an expenditure?” he asks. “We’re talking about nine figures at least.” Schwartz says all he’s got is AT&T. “The power of defaults is real,” Mehta says, but “that’s a different question than whether I can legally grant the remedy you’re asking.”
