Google Search succeeds because of competition, not in spite of it.

— As we’ve previously shown, Google Search is the leading search engine because the market thinks it’s the best option available. Last fall, then-Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker testified that Mozilla chose Google as the default search engine because of its “miraculous” quality. She noted that, when Mozilla switched its default search engine from Google to Yahoo, consumers revolted and even she grew “frustrated.” Mozilla then switched back to Google for “more accurate results and a superior user experience.”

— The search default agreements that Judge Mehta cites as the primary issue in his opinion are part of a healthy competitive process. As Jay Ezrielev, a former FTC economic adviser, explains, companies earn default agreements through a bidding process that is structured to help the browsers and service providers who are using the search engine.

— Google and other search engine companies bid to enter into a revenue sharing agreement, where they pay browser companies and other distributors a significant portion of their ad revenue to become the default engine. Ezrielev writes that these agreements are major competitive drivers: they “effectively reduce the distributors’ marginal costs of serving users and provide direct incentives for [them] to compete for new users by reducing prices and investing in innovation… Enjoining Google from paying for default status would deny users these significant procompetitive benefits of lower prices and greater innovation.”

The decision favors Google’s corporate rivals over everyday consumers.

— The court’s decision picks winners and losers. Although there are currently many companies competing for these agreements, the court’s decision might benefit Google’s competitors while hindering competition in search engine bidding. 

— This skewed market would make it harder for consumers to access the search engine they want. Regardless of who is allowed to bid for search defaults, the fact of the matter is that consumers strongly prefer Google Search. As Project Disco notes, “There is a reason why “google” is the top global search in Bing and the third top search in the U.S.”

The decision acknowledges Google has produced services consumers seem to appreciate and prefer—but decides to protect competitors rather than competition and consumers.

— As we’ve previously written, U.S. antitrust law is about objective standards that analyze how companies’ practices affect competition and consumers. Judge Mehta’s decision does not live up to these standards. Geoff Manne of the International Center for Law and Economics concludes: “The court’s order… fails to demonstrate how the contractual agreements at-issue harm consumers or competition. Moreover, the court overlooks the broader competitive landscape in search and the vigorous competition in which Google has been engaged to become the default search engine.”

— At the start of his opinion, Judge Mehta himself acknowledged that Google is a case study in successful competition and innovation: “It has hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated consistently, and made shrewd business decisions. The result is the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users.” 

The court previously dismissed several of the government’s central claims against Google.

— Monday’s decision focused narrowly on search default agreements, and Judge Mehta previously tossed the government’s claims about how Google designs its search product, including that the company engaged in “self-preferencing.” These dismissals highlight an important fact: Google’s innovative search results benefit consumers with a wide array of helpful choices delivered in milliseconds.