Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
He is the Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Phil Wiser, welcome back to the show. It's good to
talk to you.
Speaker 3 (00:05):
Always great to chat with you. Ross.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
So I enjoy folks who listen to the show. No,
I enjoy sparring with Phil from time to time. And
so I will begin this conversation in a completely unfair way,
because Phil always takes it in the proper spirit that
folks on the left tend to enjoy filing anti trust
(00:27):
lawsuits against big companies just because they're big.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
That might be what's happening here with Google.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
A federal judge just ruled in a way that made
Phil pretty happy, ruling that Google is abusing its monopoly
power in the search engine market. So, Phil, was my
very unfair to you framing What do you think we
need to know about this decision?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Well, I would put the context on the table here, which,
and this is something very important about anti trust enforcement.
Is not like regulation where I get to say, oh,
I woke up in morning, I didn't like this company.
I'm going to impose certain requirements. This is a rigorous,
systematic evaluation through what was a very long process, including
(01:13):
a nine week trial with a very careful judge who
wrote a two hundred and eighty something page opinion. So
just to give all the listeners out there the context.
This isn't like me having a thought. This is a judge,
after a lot of evidence, a lot of expert testimony,
rendering a judgment. And the judgment was very clear, and
(01:34):
the judge made it, in my mind, pretty powerful in
terms of how this will stand up. What Google did
here was not compete on the merits. They locked up
the distribution channels, made it basically impossible for rivals, notably
Microsoft's thing, to enter into this marketplace. Google's paying billions
and billions of dollars to Apple and others so that
(01:54):
no one else gets that default placement. And if you
look at this mobile phones, n plus of the searches
are on Google, and they've got all these exclusive deals.
The judge said, that is a violation of any trust laws.
That's a monopoly acting in a predatory way. It's got
to stop.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
So I think in the desktop search space, I think
Google is over ninety percent there as well. I don't
think the difference is very big. And where I would
push back on you would be to say that Microsoft
duck Duck Go whoever else are not excluded.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
They're just not the default. And it you know, it
would literally take you about.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Fifteen seconds to change the default for your browser on
your phone to be a different default.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
It's very very easy to do.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
And so since these other companies are not actually excluded,
where is the harm?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
The judge took that argument very seriously, and this judge
analyzed that question and came to u fond conclusion. And
the defaults that are paid for by like Google at
a ridiculous amount of year, they're spending tens of billions
of dollars are not They're not paying for that because
they're irrelevant. They're paying for that because it provides a
(03:16):
incredible and in some cases insurmountable barrier. And just to
give you a context here, the being search engine on
the Microsoft Edge browser as well over sixty percent of
all searches. And that's something that shows you an example
of how defaults matter a lot. And on mobile phones
I mentioned where either the Android phones or Apple phones,
(03:40):
Google is the default, it's ninety five percent of searches.
So there's a theoretical point you're making. More often there
are some users that may be siscated enough that can
do what you just said, which has change their search.
But the overwhelming behavior, and there's a behavior of commists
who testify that the judgemound very convincing is default matter.
And for a lot of us, we live our lives,
(04:00):
we menut and realize that we're just following this default.
Google knows that they're paying good money for it, and
they're keeping other rivals out.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Yeah, and look, I do believe default matter.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
And just so you know, I had a guest on
from the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier who has the exact
opposite of your position, So I kind of took your
position when I was talking to her. I always like
to kind of take the test my guests a little
bit on these.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Sorts of issues.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Now, it used to be that there was very clear
standard for antitrust kind of stuff in terms of harm
to the consumer. And you well understand this as somebody
who clerked for a Supreme Court justice. It's it's unclear
to me that there's demonstrable harm to consumers in that
we don't see price increases for people to search in Google,
(04:49):
and we don't see as far as I think any
honest person could point out a reduction in technological development
and innovation. It's not a stultify the product. So what's
the harm to consumers?
Speaker 3 (05:04):
The Microsoft case dealt with this point and the DC circuit,
where if this case gets appealed, this would go to
the DC circuit as well. Had a very powerful answer,
which is where competition is squelched by taking an upstart
or rivals and preventing them from getting a foothold in
the marketplace, we can presume harm the consumers. To put
(05:26):
it differently, consumers benefit from competition, from innovation, from choices,
and here that's been denied. The marketplace has been deprived
of competition and re coort. And Microsoft said that is
a good enough conclusion to basically meet the follow on point.
Consumers will be harmed by that. I want to add
(05:46):
one other point, because you mentioned about prices, it's very
important in this market not to get too hung up
on price as the only measure of what consumers care about.
Consumers care about privacy, they care about innovation, they care
about choice, and here with Google as a monopolist who
acted like one who's basically undermine rivals, consumers don't have
in many cases affect the choices, they don't have better
(06:09):
privacy protections, and they don't get innovation. Pinfully, here, we
don't know what we're missing. If we can open up
a market the competition, we'll get benefits that we can't
even imagine upstarts. We'll have a chance to compete. That's
the American way.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Okay, last question for you.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
If you were required to bet an amount of money
that was enough that you really wouldn't want to lose it,
so not a dollar, some larger amount of money. On
who ends up winning this case after the final appeal,
whether that ends up being at the DC Circuit or
at the Supreme Court, who would you bet on?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
And why I would bet on our team? And the
reason is because this judge wrote a very careful opinion.
When a judge does the type of work that happened
at this district court creates a record for the appeal
that gives us a power platform to stand on. This
judge took this case very seriously. I believe the work
(07:07):
of this opinion will stand up. So I like our position,
and I believe the real question that we're gonna have
to then struggle with is what's the remedy going to
be because I don't see Google overturning this liability finding.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
All right, fascinating. I'll bet you beer, I bet you got.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
I bet you that whatever the highest court is that
ends up hearing it will overturn Judge Judge Mata. I
don't bet that with very high confidence. I just like
betting with you.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Amen.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Phil Wiser is the Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
You can go back to your lane filtering.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Now, all right. Thanks for resting you. Take care all right.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Bye,
He is the Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Phil Wiser, welcome back to the show. It's good to
talk to you.
Speaker 3 (00:05):
Always great to chat with you. Ross.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
So I enjoy folks who listen to the show. No,
I enjoy sparring with Phil from time to time. And
so I will begin this conversation in a completely unfair way,
because Phil always takes it in the proper spirit that
folks on the left tend to enjoy filing anti trust
(00:27):
lawsuits against big companies just because they're big.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
That might be what's happening here with Google.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
A federal judge just ruled in a way that made
Phil pretty happy, ruling that Google is abusing its monopoly
power in the search engine market. So, Phil, was my
very unfair to you framing What do you think we
need to know about this decision?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Well, I would put the context on the table here, which,
and this is something very important about anti trust enforcement.
Is not like regulation where I get to say, oh,
I woke up in morning, I didn't like this company.
I'm going to impose certain requirements. This is a rigorous,
systematic evaluation through what was a very long process, including
(01:13):
a nine week trial with a very careful judge who
wrote a two hundred and eighty something page opinion. So
just to give all the listeners out there the context.
This isn't like me having a thought. This is a judge,
after a lot of evidence, a lot of expert testimony,
rendering a judgment. And the judgment was very clear, and
(01:34):
the judge made it, in my mind, pretty powerful in
terms of how this will stand up. What Google did
here was not compete on the merits. They locked up
the distribution channels, made it basically impossible for rivals, notably
Microsoft's thing, to enter into this marketplace. Google's paying billions
and billions of dollars to Apple and others so that
(01:54):
no one else gets that default placement. And if you
look at this mobile phones, n plus of the searches
are on Google, and they've got all these exclusive deals.
The judge said, that is a violation of any trust laws.
That's a monopoly acting in a predatory way. It's got
to stop.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
So I think in the desktop search space, I think
Google is over ninety percent there as well. I don't
think the difference is very big. And where I would
push back on you would be to say that Microsoft
duck Duck Go whoever else are not excluded.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
They're just not the default. And it you know, it
would literally take you about.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Fifteen seconds to change the default for your browser on
your phone to be a different default.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
It's very very easy to do.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
And so since these other companies are not actually excluded,
where is the harm?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
The judge took that argument very seriously, and this judge
analyzed that question and came to u fond conclusion. And
the defaults that are paid for by like Google at
a ridiculous amount of year, they're spending tens of billions
of dollars are not They're not paying for that because
they're irrelevant. They're paying for that because it provides a
(03:16):
incredible and in some cases insurmountable barrier. And just to
give you a context here, the being search engine on
the Microsoft Edge browser as well over sixty percent of
all searches. And that's something that shows you an example
of how defaults matter a lot. And on mobile phones
I mentioned where either the Android phones or Apple phones,
(03:40):
Google is the default, it's ninety five percent of searches.
So there's a theoretical point you're making. More often there
are some users that may be siscated enough that can
do what you just said, which has change their search.
But the overwhelming behavior, and there's a behavior of commists
who testify that the judgemound very convincing is default matter.
And for a lot of us, we live our lives,
(04:00):
we menut and realize that we're just following this default.
Google knows that they're paying good money for it, and
they're keeping other rivals out.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Yeah, and look, I do believe default matter.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
And just so you know, I had a guest on
from the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier who has the exact
opposite of your position, So I kind of took your
position when I was talking to her. I always like
to kind of take the test my guests a little
bit on these.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Sorts of issues.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Now, it used to be that there was very clear
standard for antitrust kind of stuff in terms of harm
to the consumer. And you well understand this as somebody
who clerked for a Supreme Court justice. It's it's unclear
to me that there's demonstrable harm to consumers in that
we don't see price increases for people to search in Google,
(04:49):
and we don't see as far as I think any
honest person could point out a reduction in technological development
and innovation. It's not a stultify the product. So what's
the harm to consumers?
Speaker 3 (05:04):
The Microsoft case dealt with this point and the DC circuit,
where if this case gets appealed, this would go to
the DC circuit as well. Had a very powerful answer,
which is where competition is squelched by taking an upstart
or rivals and preventing them from getting a foothold in
the marketplace, we can presume harm the consumers. To put
(05:26):
it differently, consumers benefit from competition, from innovation, from choices,
and here that's been denied. The marketplace has been deprived
of competition and re coort. And Microsoft said that is
a good enough conclusion to basically meet the follow on point.
Consumers will be harmed by that. I want to add
(05:46):
one other point, because you mentioned about prices, it's very
important in this market not to get too hung up
on price as the only measure of what consumers care about.
Consumers care about privacy, they care about innovation, they care
about choice, and here with Google as a monopolist who
acted like one who's basically undermine rivals, consumers don't have
in many cases affect the choices, they don't have better
(06:09):
privacy protections, and they don't get innovation. Pinfully, here, we
don't know what we're missing. If we can open up
a market the competition, we'll get benefits that we can't
even imagine upstarts. We'll have a chance to compete. That's
the American way.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Okay, last question for you.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
If you were required to bet an amount of money
that was enough that you really wouldn't want to lose it,
so not a dollar, some larger amount of money. On
who ends up winning this case after the final appeal,
whether that ends up being at the DC Circuit or
at the Supreme Court, who would you bet on?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
And why I would bet on our team? And the
reason is because this judge wrote a very careful opinion.
When a judge does the type of work that happened
at this district court creates a record for the appeal
that gives us a power platform to stand on. This
judge took this case very seriously. I believe the work
(07:07):
of this opinion will stand up. So I like our position,
and I believe the real question that we're gonna have
to then struggle with is what's the remedy going to
be because I don't see Google overturning this liability finding.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
All right, fascinating. I'll bet you beer, I bet you got.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
I bet you that whatever the highest court is that
ends up hearing it will overturn Judge Judge Mata. I
don't bet that with very high confidence. I just like
betting with you.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Amen.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Phil Wiser is the Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
You can go back to your lane filtering.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Now, all right. Thanks for resting you. Take care all right.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Bye,
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.