At various points, I have seen the claim that Google should be declared a public utility (and regulated as such), but never understood the arguments in detail. The article in the url below by the Republican Attorney General of Ohio does this effectively by explaining legal action that he had recently taken:
"As Ohio's attorney general, I went to court last month asking for a judicial declaration that Google has evolved into such an entity: a public utility of internet search."
The attorney general first makes his point, quite convincingly I think, that Google is a monopoly:
"Google is ubiquitous. More web traffic goes to Google and YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, than the other top 50 websites combined. And it's not just internet traffic: Google dominates internet search, cornering nearly 90 percent of the U.S. search market, and even more globally. Bing, the runner-up in internet search, claims a mere 6 percent of the U.S. market and 2 percent globally."
He then explains what it would mean if the courts decided in favor of his case, and suggests it would be a lot less traumatic for the company than the alternative of antitrust action that is currently being considered in Washington:
"As a common-law public utility, Google would then have a legal duty to act with consideration of the public interest, to provide equal access to all users and all information providers and to act without unreasonable bias against information providers, particularly Google's competitors in other business lines. That's it. As legal touches go, it's a lot lighter than what antitrust law would demand."
Then, he details the consequences of the decision for the public at large:
"The subtle common-carrier changes for users will be positive, such as showing you the results you requested instead of being steered to Google products. My lawsuit alleges that Google prioritizes its own products and platforms in search results. … As a public utility, Google search would have to give others a better shot. Those searching would get results that are not skewed to Google, and the marketplace would be a bit more competitive."
And, finally, he rebuts some of the more common objections he sees made to defend the company. For example:
"Critics of Ohio's lawsuit abound, of course. To knock down a few straw men: Ohio's action is not chilling Google's right to free speech. To the contrary, Google will remain free to say anything it pleases. … Critics also say that this creates a dormant commerce clause problem — that one state among 50 is using its law in a manner that burdens interstate commerce, a violation of sovereignty and federalism. But Google can geo-fence Ohio (and the other states that will most likely follow Ohio's lead) if it chooses. The truth of the matter is that foreign governments already are regulating cyberspaces around the world, and with a far heavier hand."
Ultimately, however, his argument relies on the point that Google's dominance undermines the competitive market. That is, whether Google is currently abusing its position is beside the point for two reasons: first, the company might be doing so in a way that is currently unobservable to many and, second, left unchecked, it could do so at some point in the future. The author provides an anecdote, taken from U.S. history, which helped motivate the original antitrust legislation by Congress:
"The duty for a public utility to operate in the public interest dates back to English common law, when key economic players such as ferry operators had to fulfill certain obligations to the public. During the Gilded Age, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt controlled a bridge that was key to getting to New York City by train. In the late 1860s, he closed the bridge to rivals, effectively shutting the rest of the country out of its largest port, and the city off from food supplies from the west. As the competing railroads' stock crashed, he quickly bought up a controlling position. As a result, Vanderbilt used his control of a chokepoint to help establish a monopoly. To curb such predations, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 and subsequently began codifying common-carrier and public-utility law."
His conclusion is that, if Google's current market position is not addressed, it is society that will suffer:
"The preface to Google's parent company's code of conduct says, 'Do the right thing — follow the law, act honorably and treat co-workers with courtesy, support and respect.' Google could do that by acknowledging what is obvious: It's so dominant that the rules of private companies no longer apply to it."
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Let's Make Google a Public Good
By Dave Yost
July 11, 2021
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
SR2
