How the US Department of Justice wants to break Google’s monopoly power +++ When the antitrust proceedings against Meta will start +++ How Amazon is preventing lower prices in online retail +++ Why the Federal Cartel Office cannot investigate the takeover of AI start-ups by Microsoft
1) Google: Split is getting closer
In the US, the Department of Justice has now called for the Chrome browser to be split off. In August, a US court found that Google has an illegal monopoly in online search. Now it is a question of the remedial measures that the judge should order. The Department of Justice and the US states involved have submitted a comprehensive proposal as plaintiffs (pdf). The court should prohibit Google search from being set as the default across the board via exclusive contracts, for example on smartphones. Google should license its search index and search queries for a limited time so that other search engines can catch up with the data and quality advantage illegally achieved by Google. Websites should have more options to ensure that their content is not used in Google’s AI products.
A complete package against Google’s monopoly position
The proposals form an impressive overall package that is precisely targeted against Google’s monopoly strategy in online search and at the same time has current AI developments in mind. The US authorities are not relying on a bit of damage limitation or fines that Google will ultimately simply pay out of its monopoly profits. It is a serious attempt to break up an entrenched monopoly in the tech sector. This is refreshing and a milestone – even if the court does not ultimately adopt all the measures.
Structural measures such as the spin-off of Chrome are a sensible way of limiting Google’s power. In combination with the other measures, Google’s monopoly strategy can be stopped. Google wants to control central access points to the internet such as the browser or smartphones so that Google search is preset there. This secures the search monopoly and allows Google to charge excessive advertising prices. As a result, the company can generate high monopoly profits with which it can further expand its own power. The US proposals would be an important step towards creating more scope for alternative online services.
Spin-offs also necessary in the advertising business
In addition, Google’s dominance in the placement of online advertising, in the so-called adtech sector, must be broken up. To this end, EU abuse proceedings are about to be concluded. The EU Commission should order the spin-off of parts of the advertising business. It had already threatened this in June 2023 and should stick to it. For the new EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera, a spin-off is still on the table, as she signaled at the beginning of December.
The competition authorities in the USA are also seeking a spin-off of adtech services – the court proceedings are ongoing. November 25 was the last day of the trial. A ruling is expected in the next two months. Recently, the Canadian competition authority also filed a lawsuit against Google. It also wants to force the tech company to spin off its advertising business. Things are getting increasingly tight for Google.
Read our analysis for more background information on Google’s monopoly strategy, its advertising business and why a split-up is the right thing to do.
2) Further monopoly proceedings in prospect
But Google is not the only tech company that has to go to court. On April 14, 2025, the antitrust proceedings against Meta for the takeovers of Whatsapp and Instagram will begin in the USA. In November, a US court rejected Meta’s request to stop the proceedings. The investigation began in 2020 during Trump’s first term in office. In October, a court also ruled that the proceedings against Amazon could continue. However, individual claims were rejected. Apple is still fighting to prevent a lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice from being admitted to court.
In Europe, Amazon is likely to face an investigation by the EU Commission next year. According to the news agency Reuters, it wants to investigate whether Amazon favors its own products over others on its online services. The investigation is based on the Digital Markets Act, which is intended to regulate the power of tech giants.
Microsoft is also being targeted by the authorities: In a class action lawsuit in the UK, the tech giant is accused of increasing the usage fees for Windows Server for cloud customers of Google, Amazon and others in such a way that the use of Microsoft’s Azure cloud appears cheaper. Microsoft should have to disclose how high the additional costs are and pay them back to customers. Incidentally, Google and Microsoft are currently engaged in an intense dispute in the EU about possible barriers to competition in the cloud market.
3) How Amazon hinders lower prices
A plusminus investigation shows: Amazon uses its market power to prevent manufacturers from offering their products more cheaply on other platforms. A former Amazon manager reveals the practices the company uses to “bring manufacturers to their knees”. For example, the so-called Buy Box disappears if a cheaper price is offered elsewhere. This shows customers the price and they can buy the goods immediately. Without the Buy Box, retailers’ sales collapse.
By preventing better offers on other platforms, Amazon appears to be the cheapest provider. According to the ex-Amazon manager, Amazon has no interest in “giving the customer a good price”, but merely in “taking business away from competitors”. Amazon’s anti-competitive practices harm consumers, third-party retailers and other online marketplaces. The research makes it clear why Amazon’s enormous market power must be restricted. Proceedings are currently underway at the Federal Cartel Office regarding these “price control” practices.
4) Big tech AI partnerships remain (effectively) untested
The German Federal Cartel Office has discontinued its investigation in the Microsoft/Inflection case. The case shows the need for reform in competition law. So far, the competition authorities have not been able to effectively investigate or even prevent the power strategies of the dominant tech companies in the AI sector. The major gatekeepers such as Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft are trying to expand their position through partnerships or quasi-acquisitions of AI start-ups.
Microsoft had taken over almost all employees of the AI start-up Inflection and at the same time paid a large sum to offer the Inflection models via its own cloud. The German Federal Cartel Office classifies this as a “de facto” takeover that may be subject to German merger control. The problem: the German Competition Act (GWB) requires the acquired company to operate to a significant extent in Germany. According to the Bundeskartellamt, this has not been the case with Inflection to date. It has therefore discontinued its investigation.
Unfortunately, it is not sufficient for an antitrust review if a company is likely to operate in Germany. This is a particular problem in the takeover of digital start-ups when a start-up is bought by a large tech group and a global rollout is expected. This loophole has already prevented the Bundeskartellamt from reviewing the Microsoft/OpenAI deal.
This year, the Federal Ministry of Economics prepared a small ARC reform to improve the so-called transaction value threshold at this point. This would have been a sensible step, which has now been omitted as a result of the traffic-light exit. It would be good if this small but important reform were to be put back on the agenda next year under a new federal government.
It remains to be seen whether the Federal Cartel Office will take action against Microsoft elsewhere. At the end of September, it decided that the tech group is subject to extended abuse control under German law competition law.
5) Worth reading on AI and digital policy
Just a few notes, particularly on AI and the growing concentration of power in the field and the social impact:
The report “Redirecting Europe’s Industrial Policy. From Competitiveness to Public Interest ” by the AI Now Institute is all about Europe’s AI industrial policy. What kind of digital future, of AI, does Europe want? The report aims to go beyond narrow objectives such as competitiveness and sovereignty. In individual chapters, it addresses issues such as concentrated power in the tech industry and the (problematic) environmental impact of AI.
Our US partners from the Open Markets Institute and the Mozilla Corporation have published a joint study: “Stopping Big Tech from Becoming Big AI: A Roadmap for Using Competition Policy to Keep Artificial Intelligence Open for All“. It looks at the concentration of power in the AI sector and the necessary countermeasures to ensure that AI is not dominated by a few tech giants.
The Konrad Adenauer Foundation has published a paper on how the EU Commission can improve law enforcement against large tech companies. The analysis assumes that effective enforcement of data protection rules, for example, is not only necessary for the protection of elections or our children, but also gives European start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises more opportunities.
Stay up to date:
Photo: Mark Stuckey on Unsplash
