[bbor]

The author is just focusing on this aspect bc that’s this case, but there’s multiple ongoing. E.g. there’s one about monopolistic practices in the online ad business.

Specifically here:

  How does Google lock out rivals? Well, it pays $45 billion a year to have distributors refuse to carry its competitor’s products, signing deals with “Apple, LG, Motorola, and Samsung; major U.S. wireless carriers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon; and browser developers such as Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb— to secure default status for its general search engine and, in many cases, to specifically prohibit Google’s counterparties from dealing with Google’s competitors.”

[ttul]

That sounds anticompetitive to me. But I understand that proving criminal anticompetitive behavior is extremely difficult under US law, which is why it almost never happens. And companies as large as Google can outpunch regulators on legal spending, paying ex-government lawyers millions per year to work around the rules.

[asah]

Refuse to carry? Or just not the default?