Expert Defends Google’s Payments To Device Makers In US Antitrust Trial

An expert witness called by Alphabet's Google argued that the multi-billion-dollar payments made to Apple, wireless carriers and other entities were not an abuse of monopoly but rather normal competitive behaviour. 

Kevin Murphy, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, contended that Apple and other companies strategically pitted Google against Microsoft to secure substantial payments, suggesting that these transactions were a result of healthy market competition.

The trial, now possibly in its final week, centres around the US government's allegations that Google's payments, totaling USD 26.3 billion in 2021, were aimed at ensuring its search engine's default status on smartphones and browsers, thereby maintaining an unfair stranglehold on the market. Murphy's testimony challenges this narrative, asserting that the payments were reflective of competitive dynamics rather than anticompetitive practices.

According to Murphy, the payments made by Google were not only a consequence of market forces but also beneficial to end-users. He argued that the funds often trickled down to consumers in the form of cheaper phones or improved data plans, presenting a positive aspect to Google's financial arrangements with other tech giants.

Additionally, Murphy drew attention to the historical landscape, noting that even when Microsoft dominated preinstalled browser defaults in the early 2010s, its Bing search engine only captured 15 per cent of search queries. This comparison aims to highlight that market dominance in one aspect does not necessarily translate into overall control.

In addressing concerns about the complexity of changing default settings on devices, Murphy acknowledged some challenges but suggested that users typically found ways to navigate these difficulties, such as opting for alternative browsers.