Google must face an antitrust lawsuit by web users who claim the company's search deals with Apple and others hindered competitors in search -- such as DuckDuckGo, which touts itself as privacy friendly, and the defunct subscription-based Neeva.
U.S. District Court Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the users' allegations, if proven true, could “support the plausible inference that in a more competitive market, viable search alternatives would have emerged that offer greater privacy protections or are less clogged with ads,” U.S. District Court Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco wrote in an eight-page decision.
The ruling comes in a complaint brought in April 2022 by Mary Katherine Arcell and other search engine users.
They alleged that Google monopolized search by arranging to serve as the default search engine for Apple's Safari and on Android devices.
advertisement
advertisement
The U.S. Department of Justice brought similar antitrust claims against Google in 2020.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta's sided against Google in the Justice Department's case, stating in a written ruling that Google's distribution deals allowed it to illegally monopolize search.
Mehta's ruling flagged the privacy implications of Google's monopoly, characterizing DuckDuckGo as a privacy-protective search engine that is hindered by Google's search distribution deals, and a lack of access to data. (DuckDuckGo says it doesn't save users' IP address or any unique identifiers alongside searches.)
Mehta also noted that the short-lived subscription-based rival Neeva was unable to gain traction in the search market.
After Mehta issued his decision, Arcell and the others brought an amended complaint that incorporated portions of Mehta's opinion -- including his finding that Google's monopoly in search hindered competitors with more privacy safeguards.
“Because plaintiffs are users of the services provided by internet search engines, and because they have used Google search on an almost daily basis, they have been harmed and continue to be threatened with harm and damage in that they have been deprived of the quality, service and privacy that they otherwise would have enjoyed but for Google’s anticompetitive conduct,” the amended complaint alleged.
In November, Google urged Lin to throw out the new complaint, arguing that it failed to offer specifics regarding the privacy-protective search engines users “have been supposedly missing out on.”
The company added that DuckDuckGo currently operates, and is available to the plaintiffs.
Lin dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims, but said they could attempt to prove Google's distribution deals “precluded competitors from providing consumers high-quality search products that are more privacy protective and ad-free.”
The judge added that the allegations, if proven true, could “support the plausible inference that in a more competitive market, viable search alternatives would have emerged that offer greater privacy protections or are less clogged with ads.”
Google declined to comment on the ruling.