I am a bit perplexed at the Washington Post editors’ reaction to the bipartisan antitrust suit against Google. Yes, initially it was filed just by Republican state AGs but now nearly all fifty state AGs, Republicans and Democrats alike, have piled on. Here’s their complaint:
Why so many cases causing so much confusion? The primary culprit is something that shouldn’t have a role in antitrust at all: partisan politics.
Just to recap, the Department of Justice, all but two states, and the European Union all have antitrust suits against Google. Google is now an octopus, with tentacles as large as anything that Frank Norris ever wrote about. That means multiple potential lines of attack. That doesn’t sound primarily like a partisan issue to me.
The editors themselves put their fingers on the issue:
The Texas suit raises questions about vertical integration in the digital advertising stack that merit probing. For instance, does Google’s triple role as buyer, seller and middleman point to a need for regulations in these markets that mirror those in the financial sector?
Is it possible that they’re concerned about something that remains unmentioned in the editorial? Let’s see. Hmmm. FAANG. The “F” stands for Facebook against which an antitrust suit was filed last week. The “G” stands for Google. The DoJ filed its suit back in October, the EU its suit in November, ten Republican AGs filed theirs this week followed by 38 other AGs. What does one of the “A”s stand for? Oh, yes, another vertically integrated monopoly.
That A item is one many of the chattering class use as a class signifier and contributed a bit to their student debt.
Whether or not the cases proceed, the real entertainment will be in seeing which lawyers, expert witnesses etc get paid and by whom.