Washington, D.C. — On May 9, the American Economic Liberties Project filed an amicus brief in United States, et al. v. Google, LLC (the “Google Search” illegal monopolization case), where Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court of the District Court of Columbia is considering proposed remedies for Google’s illegal maintenance of monopoly in the markets for online search and search text advertising.

“Google and its surrogates are pulling out every stop to render the court’s condemnation of its illegal monopoly toothless, seeking to deprive the public of the tangible benefits of successful antitrust enforcement,” said Lee Hepner, Senior Legal Counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. “The condemnation of Google’s monopoly cannot be in vain, and an ineffective remedy presents an urgent threat to the rule of law. The court’s affirmative duty is clear: it must unfetter the market from Google’s monopoly, deprive Google of the fruits of its monopoly, and prevent the re-emergence of monopoly, including in related AI markets.”

“Google has urged a slap-on-the-wrist remedy that would fall far short of unlocking competitive forces that have been absent for years in these markets.” said Catherine Simonsen, Senior Legal Fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project. “Google’s arguments for a get-out-of-jail-free card have no support in U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which requires the court to craft a remedy designed to eliminate Google’s monopolistic grip on search and related markets.”

As set forth in Economic Liberties’ amicus brief, Google and its surrogates offer numerous arguments why Judge Mehta should stop short of fully achieving the remedial objectives required by the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief among them is the argument that the Government must prove a “significant causal connection” between Google’s conduct and its illegal monopoly maintenance in order for the court to order the divestiture of Chrome, or any other structural relief. Despite passing mention in Microsoft, this argument has little basis in the law, and is not permitted by the court’s affirmative obligation imposed by the Supreme Court.

Google also argues that the court’s remedy must be of the same “type or class” as the conduct the Court found anticompetitive. Again, this is an argument roundly rejected by binding Supreme Court precedent. Finally, Google argues that structural relief is not available in a case where the defendant “merely” unlawfully maintains—as opposed to acquires—monopoly power. As Economic Liberties argues, this argument is unsupported by applicable law, including the same authority that Google selectively cites to make its specious argument.

Each of Google’s arguments fail under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which provides that upon a finding of a violation of Section 2, the court must do more than simply enjoin future violations; it must put an end to the monopolizing conduct, “assure the complete extirpation of the illegal monopoly,” and deprive the defendant of the fruits of its unlawful restraints. United States v. United Shoe Machine Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 247 (1968).

Read the full amicus brief here.

Learn more about Economic Liberties here.