Circola ormai dappertutto la notizia in oggetto. che ritiene Google autore di violazione.
Si tratta di US D. of Columbia 5 agosto 2024 Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) e Case No. 20-cv-3715 (APM), giudice Amit P. Mehta.
Ne parla ad es sul NyT del 27 agosto Julia Angwin che dà pure il link al full text fornito dal NYT medesimo, disponibile pure qui in caso di paywall del NYT.
La decisione è assai lunga ma molto interessante per chi si interessa di antitrust nei mercati digitali. Anzi pure per chi semplicemetne voglia capire il business dei motori di ricerca /o vuole fare pubblicità loro tramite: la descrizione dei termini economici e commercial è dettagliata assai.
La posizione dominante, in sostanza monopolistica, è datga dalla percentuale del 89.2 del mercato (94.9 sui cell.): v. §§ 23/24.
Ricordo solo due punti: quello (all’inizio) che anticipa le conclusioni e poi quello sull’importanza della dimensioni di scala.
Sul primo:
<<After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.
It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the court holds that (1 ) there are relevant product markets for general searchservices and general search text ads; (2) Google has monopoly power in those markets;(3) Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and(4) Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements. Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitiveprices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits.Other determinations favor Google. The court holds that ( 1 ) there is a product market for search advertising but that Google lacks monopoly power in that market; (2) there is no product market for general search advertising; and (3) Google is not liable for its actions involving its advertising platform, SA360. The court also declines to sanction Google under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 37(e) for its failure to preserve its employees’ chat messages>>.
Poi sulla struttura dell’atto decisionale: <<This decision is organized as follows. The court begins with a brief procedural history.It then sets forth findings of fact. They are followed by the court’s conclusions of law regardingthe challenged distribution agreements. The court first addresses market definition and monopolypower, then the exclusionary nature of the conduct (including the contracts’ exclusivity), and finally the agreements ‘ anticompetitive effects and Google’s procompetitive justifications forthem. A discussion of the SA360-related conduct follows. The opinion ends with brief sections on anticompetitive intent, as well as Plaintiffs ‘ request for sanctions. The court has included as an Appendix a list of the names and titles of all witnesses whose testimony is cited in the decision” (pag. 4).
Sul secondo, v.si sub G ai §§ 86 ss e poi sub V.A.2. “b. The Impact ofScale” alle pp. 230 ss (234 ss del pdf).
Assai interessante è la parte sulla distrubizione dei motori di ricerca generalisti (GSE), §§ 58 ss sub F.
La norma azionata dello Sherman Act (v.lo nello US Code offerto da Cornell): Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.