Google vs. America: Difference between revisions
(→Utah-Android case: add basic info) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* By the State of Texas, in relation to advertising ("Texas-advert case" in headings, Case IV in text) | * By the State of Texas, in relation to advertising ("Texas-advert case" in headings, Case IV in text) | ||
===Utah-Android case=== | ===Utah-Android case=== | ||
'''Filed in:''' Northern District of California (covering the coast of California down to about Monterey, and including the Bay Area) | |||
'''Link to complaint:''' https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/07/08/antitrust.pdf | |||
'''List of plaintiffs:''' Utah, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia | |||
===Colorado-search case=== | ===Colorado-search case=== | ||
===Federal-mobile case=== | ===Federal-mobile case=== | ||
Revision as of 14:33, 27 October 2021
Four antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Google by state attorneys general, charging it with attempting and conspiring to monopolize interstate commerce. If successful, the states concerned will receive threefold the damages caused to their residents by Google's alleged monopolistic behavior.
Such a drastic action, while very unusual for the present time, is not unprecedented in Internet history. The breakup of the Bell System either resulted in or caused the growth of phreaking, depending on your viewpoint. The lawsuit against Microsoft, while its outcome was anticlimactic, did spell the beginning of the end of the domination of Internet Explorer.
It is important to note that because both cases were settled, they are not precedents in the legal sense. But even though they didn't set precedent (make rules future judges have to follow), they did have widespread social, economic, and political effects. These cases might fall into that category, as well.
They reflect a new understanding that Big Tech corporations are the colonizers, not the friends, of the common man of the Internet. Both sides of the political spectrum, despite their widening differences, have united in realizing that these corporations are responsible only to themselves and their shareholders and not to the people.
Overview of the cases
Four cases have been filed. The numbering is for convenience and is arbitrary.
- By the State of Utah, in relation to Android ("Utah-Android case" in headings, Case I in text)
- By the State of Colorado, in relation to searching ("Colorado-search case" in headings, Case II in text)
- By the Federal Government, in relation to defaults for mobile devices ("Federal-mobile case" in headings, Case III in text)
- By the State of Texas, in relation to advertising ("Texas-advert case" in headings, Case IV in text)
Utah-Android case
Filed in: Northern District of California (covering the coast of California down to about Monterey, and including the Bay Area) Link to complaint: https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/07/08/antitrust.pdf List of plaintiffs: Utah, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
