If you’ve worked in SEO or digital marketing for any length of time, you’ll probably be aware of just how dominant Google has become. For most businesses, appearing prominently in Google’s search results can make the difference between a successful website and one that receives virtually no visitors, and Google’s advertising platform has become an almost essential part of many companies’ marketing strategies.
However, Google’s dominance is now being challenged in the US courts, with the Department of Justice accusing the company of illegally maintaining a monopoly over the search engine market.
The trial, which began in September 2023, concluded with closing arguments last month, and although we’re still waiting for a verdict, some of the information that’s emerged has been particularly interesting, especially for those of us who work with Google’s products every day.
Google Pays an Awful Lot to Be Your Default Search Engine
Perhaps the most surprising revelation is just how much Google spends ensuring that its search engine is the default option on smartphones and web browsers.
According to evidence presented during the trial, Google paid more than $26 billion in 2021 to companies including Apple, Samsung and various other partners to secure its position as the default search engine on their devices and software.
Even more remarkably, documents revealed that Google paid Apple approximately $20 billion in 2022 alone, primarily for making Google the default search engine in Safari.
That’s an extraordinary amount of money when you consider that people can simply change their default search engine in their browser settings.
Of course, the reason Google is willing to spend so much is that most people never actually bother changing those settings. If Google is already there when somebody starts using their new phone, there’s a good chance they’ll continue using it indefinitely.
The Department of Justice argues that these agreements make it almost impossible for competitors to establish themselves, regardless of how good their search engines might be.
Google, on the other hand, maintains that companies choose its search engine because it’s the best available, and that users are perfectly capable of switching to Bing or another alternative if they want to.
I suspect there’s some truth in both arguments, but spending $20 billion a year to remain Apple’s default search engine certainly suggests that Google considers that position rather valuable.
Is Google Really That Much Better Than Bing?
One of the central questions raised during the trial is whether Google’s dominance is primarily the result of having a better product, or whether its commercial agreements make it unnecessarily difficult for competitors to gain market share.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that Google’s position as the default search engine on so many devices provides an enormous competitive advantage, particularly because the volume of searches Google processes gives it access to data that can help improve its results.
This creates something of a cycle. The more people use Google, the more data it collects, potentially allowing it to improve its search engine and making it even more difficult for competitors to catch up.
However, Google argues that its dominance isn’t simply down to distribution agreements. The company has invested billions in developing its search technology, and there’s no guarantee that people would continue using a competitor simply because it was installed as their default.
For what it’s worth, I think Google generally still produces better search results than Bing, although the difference isn’t necessarily as enormous as it once was.
But that’s hardly the point. A competitor shouldn’t necessarily have to be significantly better than Google just to stand a reasonable chance of attracting customers.
What About Google’s Advertising Business?
Another particularly interesting aspect of the trial concerns Google’s search advertising business, which generates an enormous proportion of the company’s revenue.
The Department of Justice argues that Google’s dominance allows it to increase advertising prices without facing the competitive pressure that would exist in a more balanced market.
This is potentially significant for businesses that rely heavily on Google Ads.
Unlike traditional advertising, where you might agree to pay a fixed amount for an advertisement, Google Ads generally operates through an auction system, with advertisers competing for visibility against other businesses targeting similar searches.
Google has considerable control over how these auctions operate, including the factors that determine which advertisements appear and how much advertisers pay.
The trial has raised questions about whether Google has used that control to increase revenue, although Google disputes the suggestion that its advertising practices are anticompetitive.
Having managed Google Ads campaigns for many years, I’m particularly interested in this aspect of the case. Advertising costs can have an enormous impact on the profitability of a business, and even relatively small increases in the average cost per click can make certain campaigns financially unviable.
Could Google Actually Be Broken Up?
Although the trial has generated plenty of headlines, it’s important to remember that Google hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything yet.
The case is being heard by Judge Amit Mehta, who now has to decide whether Google’s agreements and business practices amount to unlawful monopolisation under US antitrust law.
If the court rules against Google, there could potentially be significant consequences, ranging from restrictions on its default search agreements to more substantial changes to the way the business operates.
There has even been speculation about whether Google could ultimately be forced to separate parts of its business, although we’re a considerable distance from anything like that happening.
And even if Google loses, I’d expect the company to challenge any particularly significant ruling through the appeals process.
What Does This Mean for SEO?
From an SEO perspective, I don’t think there’s any reason to start panicking just yet.
Regardless of the outcome, Google isn’t suddenly going to disappear, and it’s likely to remain the dominant search engine for the foreseeable future.
However, the trial does raise some interesting questions about how dependent businesses have become on a single company for their website traffic.
If changes to Google’s commercial agreements eventually result in more people using alternative search engines, businesses might need to pay considerably more attention to platforms they’ve historically overlooked.
Personally, I’d welcome a little more competition in the search engine market. Google has produced some fantastic technology over the years, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should enjoy such an overwhelming advantage indefinitely.
Whether the courts agree remains to be seen.