The Information Age, globalization, and the ever growing effect millennials have on society and American culture is a turning point in American history.  The access modern society has to the internet through computers and mobile devices is unparalleled to anything in human history.  Anyone who owns an iPhone has the answer to almost any question sitting in their pockets.  These answers are available through many search engine sites.  They allow users to not only have access to the information, but have that access through the input of simple and specific keywords, followed by the output of lists of organized information.  There are various search engines sites, such as Bing, Yahoo, and Ask.com.  One giant towers above the rest, however.  The most popular search engine, Google, controls the majority of the market.  Is it possible that Google may have too much power?  Much of the early twentieth century was dedicated to regulations keeping companies from becoming too powerful.  So, a question has emerged; Is Google becoming one of the main things our government fought so hard to destroy?  This topic has been the topic of many works of discussion, and in order to fully answer that question, it is important to understand what a monopoly is, what role Google plays in the internet information distribution business, and what other companies have in relation to this issue.

According to Michelle Fabio, "A monopoly arises when one single company controls so much of the market share of a product or service that it significantly affects the terms on which others have access to it" (Fabio).  In the month of December, 2012, Google search was used 114.7 billion times.  This statistic gives Google 65.2 percent of shares, dominating all other search engines.  The second most used search engine in the world is called Baidu.  Baidu had just 14.5 billion searches in December, 2012.  The difference between the top two search engine sites is just over one billion searches and 57 percent of search engine shares.  Does this make Google the monopoly of search engines or more popular?  A true monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service" (Guardian).  Therefore, by definition, Google is not a true monopoly because Google does not have the exclusive control of all search engines.  However, the fact of the matter is that Google drastically dominates every other search engine site. (Read).

If any company has 57 percent more shares than the second largest competing business, this is going to grab the attention of the DOJ.  is the federal government defines the DOJ as "a department of the federal executive branch, headed by the attorney general, which administers the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), prosecutes violations of federal law, and is responsible for enforcing all civil rights legislation" (Fabio).  The Department of Justice is the section of the executive branch that has the authority to determine whether or not a business is a monopoly or not.

In 2008, Google was worth over 150 billion dollars.  In April of 2008, Google announced that they are planning to work with Yahoo.  Google and Yahoo had plans to make an agreement that would allow Yahoo to "use Google to sell advertising on its own pages; Yahoo currently uses its own platform to do so" (Read).  The Department of Justice would not have liked this agreement: "Through an investigation headed by Sanford "Sandy" Litvack, former Vice Chairman of Walt Disney Co., the Department of Justice concluded that the proposed Google-Yahoo deal would have violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining trade and attempting to monopolize trade" (WSJ).  The Department of Justice found that if Yahoo was permitted to use Google to sell ads, then the two companies would not be competitors.  Because of this, the agreement between Google and Yahoo would be "materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies" (WSJ).  The Department of Justice ended up not having to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google.  The agreement between the two companies was dropped just before the Department of Justice was going to file the lawsuit: "In a press release announcing that Google and Yahoo had cancelled plans for the deal, Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General and head of the Department's Antitrust Division, said: 'The arrangement likely would have denied consumers the benefits of competition -- lower prices, better service and greater innovation'" (WSJ).  Google and Yahoo dropped the agreement because they knew that there was no chance that the Department of Justice would allow it.

This case is not Google's most recent Department of Justice investigation, however.  Most recently, Google has been handling antitrust accusations from the European Union.  The European Union's Competition Commissioner or Antitrust Chief, Margrethe Vestager, accused Google of manipulating Internet search results and started an antitrust investigation into its Android mobile operating system. This is the first time in history that Google has been officially charged with an antitrust lawsuit.     According to data provider IDC, Google's Android software system is used by almost 75% of Europe's smartphone users.  As addressed earlier, Google holds approximately 65% of shares in the United States search market.  However, in Europe, Google holds about 90% of the shares in the European search market.  This puts a lot of power in the hands of Google.  Margrethe Vestager is well aware that Google is the dominate search company in Europe, but it may have caused her to overthink the reality of the situation.  (WSJ).

Not long after Google was given the antitrust lawsuit, Google's owner (Alphabet Inc.) "accused European Union regulators of making an unexplained about-face in their decision to file antitrust charges against the U.S. search giant, and warned that there was "no basis" for imposing fines" (WSJ).  In other words, the European Union did not have enough explained information on Google to file an antitrust lawsuit.  Google has not yet earned the lawsuit, but they are currently still under a five year investigation.  (Guardian)

Not only has Google had to deal with antitrust lawsuits and the Department of Justice, but big name companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and American Express have also been through similar situations.  Google has been very lucky that they have not been officially affected by an antitrust lawsuit.  Microsoft was not as lucky.  On May 18th, 1998, the Department of Justice and twenty other states initiated an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.  Microsoft was accused of abusing "monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales" (Wikipedia)  This is very similar to the accusations, given by the European Union, to Google.  However, the final result ended up much differently for the both of them.  Google has not yet been found guilty of their accusations.  Microsoft had an idea that would have just made the company have too much access and control.  Google was accused of manipulating advertisements and searches.  This could all have thought to have been a problem because Google was having some technical difficulties.  Microsoft was on the verge and trying to gain access to things that not one single company should have access to.  Microsoft was planning to join its Microsoft Windows operating system with Internet Explorer's web browser software.  What this would have done was interfere and restrict the market for competing web browsers.  Microsoft did not see the issue like the Department of Justice did: "Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of Internet Explorer for free" (Wikipedia).  It took sixteen years to end this case.  At the time, this case resulted in the largest fine imposed by Brussels.  In the end, Microsoft ended up paying about 1.6 billion euros.  This case, Microsoft vs. the United States, is more similar to the example of the Google and Yahoo agreement.  Google and Yahoo were trying to team up to benefit themselves, just as Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer were doing.  The reason that Google was not given a lawsuit, and Microsoft was, is because Google dropped out of the agreement right before they would have been given the lawsuit.  Why did Google know to drop out in this situation and Microsoft did not?  The answer to that question is because Google was well aware of Microsoft's antitrust law case that had happened way before Google was thinking about the agreement with Yahoo.  There are many reasons as to why the European Union's lawsuit against Google and Microsoft's lawsuit situations are not comparable.  One of these reasons is initial terms and accusations.  Microsoft was immediately noticed by the Department of Justice because of the company's obvious dominance of its operating system and browser.  Google was accused of multiple things already mentioned earlier. (Wikipedia). 

The digital world has spread rapidly in recent years.  Google's main line of money comes through technology.  When a business is put online, this puts the business in a situation where it is accessible to anyone with access to the internet.  There are many companies that thrive because of online shopping.  An example of one of these companies would be Amazon.  Why is Amazon a good example company?  Not only is Amazon one of the worlds largest online shopping sites, but Amazon is also a company that became big enough to catch the attention of the Department of Justice.  Amazon is a type of company where its convenience sells itself.  The company originally started just selling and shipping books.  As years past, more and more products were added to the list of things that someone could buy off of Amazon.  Today, Amazon is now selling just about every legal product on the market.  The reason why this company has received so much attention is because the world of monopolies are extremely different now than what they were.  Companies can now be monopolies on the internet: "internet-age monopolies like Amazon are 'a different species' from predecessors like U.S. Steel or Ma Bell, particularly since Amazon's intention isn't to saddle customers with higher prices.  Instead, in its 'pursuit of bigness,' the company so brutally undercuts competitors, squeezes suppliers, and punishes those that dare to push back that its growth cannot be considered benign.  Just witness its 'record of shredding young businesses, like Zappos and Diapers.com, just as they begin to pose a competitive challenge,' or its bullying tactics with publishers over control of the book market.  This 'big-footing necessitates a government response.'" (Amazon)  Amazon is another business that could be considered a monopoly, but could also get away with not being a monopoly.  Amazon is a website that sells everything with discounts and ships at quick rates.  If the world decided to, we could make Amazon the only way that we buy anything.  That would make Amazon a complete monopoly.  There will always be other ways to buy things though.  People can make shopping a physical activity.  Shopping is not all necessarily online and because of this, Amazon cannot be considered a monopoly.  There are many circumstances in which people need things immediately.  With Amazon, the earliest you may get what you ordered could be a day.

Google has not been declared a monopoly for the many reasons previously discussed.  In short, Google has not yet been declared a monopoly because there are still enough competitors with enough business.  As Google being the number one search engine site in the world, this paints a target on Googles back.  The Department of Justice is aiming at this target because of the drastic difference in sizes between Google and its competitors.

