In a landmark ruling, a federal judge has declared Google a monopoly, citing the tech giant’s anti-competitive practices to maintain its dominant position in the search engine market. This decision could have a significant impact on the search industry and digital marketing in general, potentially reshaping the landscape for SEO strategies and paid search. While Google appeals the ruling, the entire digital ecosystem is preparing for changes that could bring more competition, lower advertising costs, and more transparency in search marketing.

On Monday, a federal judge ruled that Google has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the search engine market, a significant victory for the U.S. Department of Justice and the 35 states that brought the case against the tech giant. The court found that Google’s business practices – such as paying billions to ensure it remains the default search engine on devices like those of Apple and Samsung – were designed to stifle competition and maintain its dominant position – the definition of a monopoly.

Legal implications and precedents

Google immediately announced that it would appeal the decision. The appeal process could extend the time frame for resolving this case and potentially delay immediate changes to Google’s business practices. It’s worth noting that there was a relatively recent monopoly ruling against the NFL that was overturned on appeal after just over a month. This suggests that while the original ruling is a big deal^TMthe chances of Google successfully overturning this decision on appeal are non-zero. Exactly how non-zero are their chances? At the risk of sounding like an SEO, it depends. These types of cases are notoriously complex. The vagaries of US antitrust law are pretty broad, and Google, of course, has the very best lawyers you can get for its vast piles of money. It should be noted that the NFL case was very different from the Google case, and in my opinion (I’m not a lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) the cases are not analogous.

Comparisons with previous antitrust proceedings

Even more than the NFL antitrust case, the Google lawsuit reminds me of the antitrust case against AT&T in the early 1980s, which resulted in the company being broken up into dozens of smaller pieces. But that was a very long time ago, and the technology landscape is very different today. Perhaps the most similar antitrust case is the 1998 case against Microsoft, which accused Microsoft of having “a pressing thumb on the scales of competitive fortunes.” In particular, Microsoft was not broken up into smaller parts like AT&Tand the Microsoft case was the model the Justice Department used to sue Google. Originally, Microsoft was going to be split in half, one for the operating system and one for the software products, but ultimately they settled with the Justice Department and agreed to make changes but remain intact as a business unit. In both cases, AT&T and Microsoft survived, but neither could really achieve the same level of dominance (which I suppose was the point). In Microsoft’s case, they were essentially stymied while companies like Google and Facebook basically ran over everyone. It will be interesting to see what the remedy/punishment will be for Google. Will it be the same treatment as AT&T or the same treatment as Microsoft? Either way, it won’t be the same deal as last week.

Impact on the US market

If the decision is upheld on appeal, it could lead to a more competitive search engine market in the U.S. Consumers could have more choices for default search engines on their devices, and smaller competitors could have a better chance to innovate and gain market share. It could also lead to stricter regulations and greater scrutiny of large technology companies, potentially setting a precedent for future antitrust cases in the technology sector.

Impact on the EU market

In the EU, regulators have already taken a tough stance against Google’s market practices, resulting in several fines and imposed changes. This US decision could strengthen the EU’s regulatory framework and encourage similar legal action or stricter enforcement of existing rules. It could also spur new regulations aimed at curbing the power of dominant technology companies and further promoting competition and consumer choice in the digital market.

Impact on SEO and digital marketing

The ruling against Google could significantly impact the SEO and digital marketing landscape. If Google is forced to change its business practices, it could open the market to other search engines and lead to a more diversified search environment. (Diversification is the goal of the ruling.) This diversification could impact SEO strategies because companies would have to optimize for multiple search engines instead of only primarily with Google in focus. Reporting will change, strategies will change, allocation of resources and time will have to change. This will represent a significant disruption of power.

A side effect, perhaps unintended, could be that the “rules” of SEO we currently follow will no longer be as easily enforceable because they were created by Google to close exploitable loopholes in the algorithm, and other search engines may not have the same objections to them. Rules like “you must not sell links” and banning “reputation-damaging SEO” were put in place to change publisher behavior that distorts or manipulates the SERPs. We could see a return, or perhaps a partial return, to the halcyon days of link buying and selling, open pay-to-play publishing, and high authority subdomain leasing.

Search engine marketing (SEM) and paid advertising

For SEM and paid ads, the decision could lead to changes in Google’s advertising model. If Google has to reduce its control over the search market, it may open up more opportunities for advertisers to explore alternative platforms. This could potentially reduce the cost per click (CPC) on Google Ads due to increased competition and provide more options for advertisers who want to spread their ad spend across different platforms.

Advertisers could also benefit from improved advertising transparency and fairer tendering processes, as regulation could enforce stricter guidelines on ad delivery and pricing. The overall effect could be a more competitive and fairer digital advertising ecosystem, benefiting both advertisers and consumers.

However, lower paid search costs for advertisers mean lower revenues for publishers whose business models are based on revenues from CPM, PPC and PPA ads or affiliate relationships. A reduction in ad prices would result in lower revenues and potentially impact their ability to produce content, retain staff and invest in new technologies. This shift could lead publishers to look for alternative monetization strategies, such as subscription models, sponsored content or diversified advertising partnerships.

Final thoughts

If this decision is not was overturned on appeal, the digital marketing ecosystem is facing a dramatic change in dynamics, bringing both new opportunities and new challenges as a result of increased competition and regulatory changes.