Ohio Taking Google Search to Court Over What State Attorney General Says is ‘Unfair Practice’

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced his team will be meeting Google Search in court in May of 2024. The Republican official is seeking to declare the search engine a common carrier in order to make them subject to state regulation.

Yost alleged in a press release about the case, “By manipulating search results to self-preference its own products, Google is tilting the playing field against consumers and against emerging competitors. It’s time to bring those unfair practices to an end.”

The lawsuit focuses on commerce issues, citing concerns about conflicts with anti-competition laws. Yost’s suit does not seek monetary damages.

The attorney general said his goal was to make Google a public utility when he announced that he was bringing the suit in 2021.

Yost argued Ohioans are harmed by Google because they cannot make the best choices if they don’t get all of the information.

“Google cannot use its dominance in search to squeeze out competitors of other services, like travel reservations, shopping, and consumer reviews,” Yost said in an update about the case.

According to John Whitehead, the president of The Rutherford Institute, if the Ohio attorney general wins his case, the decision would not apply to Google searches nationwide.

“The ruling, in this case, would only apply to people using Google in Ohio, and it does not appear that this case would subject Google to federal regulation,” Whitehead told The Epoch Times.

“If Google is made a common carrier under Ohio law, then people using Google in Ohio might presumably get different search results where Google does not prioritize placement of its products, services, and websites on search results pages.”

When asked if this case would likely be appealed, Whitehead said he believed it was “very likely that Google would appeal an adverse decision against it in order to be able to continue its normal operations.”

The attorney went on to explain potential delays saying, “If Google appeals an adverse ruling, the trial court’s ruling probably wouldn’t take effect while the appeal is pending.”

In May of this year, Yost announced that the court had decided to hear the state’s case against Google’s self-preferencing algorithm, calling it a “first-of-its-kind” decision.

The ruling by the Delaware County judge opened the door to subject Google to the same regulations put on public utility companies that require fair dealing.

Yost’s office made its case by likening data and search results to the currency of the internet.

“Unlike traditional markets where competitors can introduce equivalent but cheaper alternatives, consumers in the marketplace at issue here, i.e. internet searches, never pay a monetary fee.

“Thus, the nearly exclusive avenue for competitive entry is by creating a better search result,” the suit states.

Previous rulings have found that social media companies are not subject to common carrier regulation, however, Yost claims that since Google Search is the world’s leader in search engines, their standing should be viewed differently by the court.

This isn’t the first time Ohio has struggled with Google Search over its status.

In December 2020, Yost joined 37 other attorneys general in their federal lawsuit against Google which alleged the company had broken federal law.

The lawsuit accused Google of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is a federal statute precluding action that would restrict interstate commerce or competition in the open market.

Any agreement, plot, or alliance of commercial interests that restricts international or intrastate trade is forbidden in the law.

The federal case alleges that Google would be subject to 47 U.S. Code § 201, which states that it is the duty of the carriers to “furnish such communication service upon reasonable request.”

In their complaint, which was the third of its kind brought against the internet giant, the states alleged, “Google throttles consumers from bypassing its general search engine and going directly to their chosen destination, especially when those destinations threaten Google’s monopoly power.”

The attorneys general also asserted in the complaint that the subject of the suit had “methodically undertaken actions to entrench and reinforce its general search services and search-related advertising monopolies by stifling competition. As the gateway to the internet, Google has systematically degraded the ability of other companies to access consumers.”

“Google enjoys virtually untrammeled power over internet search traffic that extends to every state, district, and territory in the United States and, indeed, into nearly every home and onto nearly every smartphone used in the United States,” the suit states.

The plaintiffs in that case included Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming; the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Virginia; the Territory of Guam; and the District of Columbia.