Antitrust Laws and Competition Issues

More stories

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The NCAA Agreed to Pay Players. It Won’t Call Them Employees.

    by

    The argument is the organization’s attempt to maintain the last vestiges of its amateur model and to prevent college athletes from collectively bargaining.The immediate takeaway from the landmark $2.8 billion settlement that the N.C.A.A. and the major athletic conferences accepted on Thursday was that it cut straight at the heart of the organization’s cherished model of amateurism: Schools can now pay their athletes directly.But another bedrock principle remains intact, and maintaining it is likely to be a priority for the N.C.A.A.: that players who are paid by the universities are not employed by them, and therefore do not have the right to collectively bargain.Congress must “establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees,” John I. Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame, said in a statement when the agreement was announced.It is the N.C.A.A.’s attempt to salvage the last vestiges of its amateur model, which for decades barred college athletes from being paid by schools or anyone else without risking their eligibility. That stance came under greater legal and political scrutiny in recent years, leading to the settlement, which still requires approval by a judge.On its face, the argument may seem peculiar. Over the past decade, public pressure and a series of court rulings — not to mention the reality that college athletics generated billions of dollars in annual revenue and that athletes received none of it — have forced the N.C.A.A. to unravel restrictions on player compensation. A California law that made it illegal to block college athletes from name, image and licensing, or N.I.L., deals paved the way for athletes to seek compensation, some of them receiving seven figures annually.At the same time, college sports have become an increasingly national enterprise. Regional rivalries and traditions have been tossed aside as schools have switched conference allegiances in pursuit of TV money. Individual conferences can now stretch from Palo Alto, Calif., to Chestnut Hill, Mass., meaning many athletes in a variety of sports are spending more time traveling to games and less time on campus.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The N.C.A.A. Agreed to Pay Players. It Won’t Call Them Employees.

    by

    The argument is the organization’s attempt to maintain the last vestiges of its amateur model and to prevent college athletes from collectively bargaining.The immediate takeaway from the landmark $2.8 billion settlement that the N.C.A.A. and the major athletic conferences accepted on Thursday was that it cut straight at the heart of the organization’s cherished model of amateurism: Schools can now pay their athletes directly.But another bedrock principle remains intact, and maintaining it is likely to be a priority for the N.C.A.A.: that players who are paid by the universities are not employed by them, and therefore do not have the right to collectively bargain.Congress must “establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees,” John I. Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame, said in a statement when the agreement was announced.It is the N.C.A.A.’s attempt to salvage the last vestiges of its amateur model, which for decades barred college athletes from being paid by schools or anyone else without risking their eligibility. That stance came under greater legal and political scrutiny in recent years, leading to the settlement, which still requires approval by a judge.On its face, the argument may seem peculiar. Over the past decade, public pressure and a series of court rulings — not to mention the reality that college athletics generated billions of dollars in annual revenue and that athletes received none of it — have forced the N.C.A.A. to unravel restrictions on player compensation. A California law that made it illegal to block college athletes from name, image and licensing, or N.I.L., deals paved the way for athletes to seek compensation, some of them receiving seven figures annually.At the same time, college sports have become an increasingly national enterprise. Regional rivalries and traditions have been tossed aside as schools have switched conference allegiances in pursuit of TV money. Individual conferences can now stretch from Palo Alto, Calif., to Chestnut Hill, Mass., meaning many athletes in a variety of sports are spending more time traveling to games and less time on campus.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Trustbuster Who Has Apple and Google in His Sights

    by

    Shortly after Jonathan Kanter took over the Justice Department’s antitrust division in November 2021, the agency secured an additional $50 million to investigate monopolies, bust criminal cartels and block mergers.To celebrate, Mr. Kanter bought a prop of a giant check, placed it outside his office and wrote on the check’s memo line: “Break ’Em Up.”Mr. Kanter, 50, has pushed that philosophy ever since, becoming a lead architect of the most significant effort in decades to fight the concentration of power in corporate America. On Thursday, he took his biggest swing when the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. In the 88-page lawsuit, the government argued that Apple had violated antitrust laws with practices intended to keep customers reliant on its iPhones and less likely to switch to competing devices.That lawsuit joins two Justice Department antitrust cases against Google that argue the company illegally shored up monopolies. Mr. Kanter’s staff has also challenged numerous corporate mergers, including suing to stop JetBlue Airways from buying Spirit Airlines.“We want to help real people by making sure that our antitrust laws work for workers, work for consumers, work for entrepreneurs and work to protect our democratic values,” Mr. Kanter said in a January interview. He declined to comment on the Google cases and other active litigation.At a news conference about the Apple lawsuit on Thursday, Mr. Kanter compared the action to past Justice Department challenges to Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft. The suit is aimed at protecting “the market for the innovations that we can’t yet perceive,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    An Emboldened F.T.C. Bolsters Biden’s Efforts to Address Inflation

    by

    With few unilateral options and little hope of legislation from Congress, the president’s early investment in competition policy could pay a political dividend.An independent federal agency has become one of the most reliable executors of President Biden’s attempts to fight inflation, at a time when the White House has few weapons of its own to quickly bring down stubbornly high prices of consumer staples like groceries.The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit on Monday, joined by several state attorneys general, to challenge a merger between the supermarket giants Kroger and Albertsons. The agency’s rationale in many ways echoed Mr. Biden’s renewed attempts to blame corporate greed for rising prices and shrinking portions in grocery aisles.“If allowed, this merger would substantially lessen competition, likely resulting in Americans paying millions of dollars more for food and other essential household goods,” agency officials wrote in a legal complaint. Because grocery prices have risen significantly in recent years, they added, “the stakes for Americans are exceptionally high.”That is true for consumers, and it is true for the president. More Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy than approve of it. Consumer confidence, while improved in recent months, remains relatively weak for an economy with low unemployment and solid growth like the one Mr. Biden is presiding over.An internal analysis by White House economists suggests that no single factor is weighing more on consumer sentiment than grocery prices. Those costs soared in 2022 and have not fallen, though their rate of increase has slowed.White House officials concede that there is little more Mr. Biden can do unilaterally to reduce grocery prices and even less chance of legislative help from Congress. That is why Mr. Biden has resorted to the bully pulpit, calling on stores to reduce prices and chastising snack makers for engaging in “shrinkflation” — reducing portions while raising or maintaining prices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Can a Tech Giant Be Woke?

    by

    The December day in 2021 that set off a revolution across the videogame industry appeared to start innocuously enough. Managers at a Wisconsin studio called Raven began meeting one by one with quality assurance testers, who vet video games for bugs, to announce that the company was overhauling their department. Going forward, managers said, the lucky testers would be permanent employees, not temps. They would earn an extra $1.50 an hour.It was only later in the morning, a Friday, that the catch became apparent: One-third of the studio’s roughly 35 testers were being let go as part of the overhaul. The workers were stunned. Raven was owned by Activision Blizzard, one of the industry’s largest companies, and there appeared to be plenty of work to go around. Several testers had just worked late into the night to meet a looming deadline.“My friend called me crying, saying, ‘I just lost my job,’” recalled Erin Hall, one of the testers who stayed on. “None of us saw that coming.”The testers conferred with one another over the weekend and announced a strike on Monday. Just after they returned to work seven weeks later, they filed paperwork to hold a union election. Raven never rehired the laid-off workers, but the other testers won their election in May 2022, forming the first union at a major U.S. video game company.It was at this point that the rebellion took a truly unusual turn. Large American companies typically challenge union campaigns, as Activision had at Raven. But in this case, Activision’s days as the sole decision maker were numbered. In January 2022, Microsoft had announced a nearly $70 billion deal to purchase the video game maker, and the would-be owners seemed to take a more permissive view of labor organizing.The month after the union election, Microsoft announced that it would stay neutral if any of Activision’s roughly 7,000 eligible employees sought to unionize with the Communications Workers of America — meaning the company would not try to stop the organizing, unlike most employers. Microsoft later said that it would extend the deal to studios it already owned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Choice Hotel Franchise Owners Push Back on Merger With Wyndham

    by

    Franchisees are fighting Choice Hotels’ attempted takeover of its biggest rival, which would create a dominant player in the budget hotel sector.When Patrick Pacious, the chief executive of a large portfolio of hotel brands, promoted a blockbuster attempt to acquire a competitor in October, he said the proposed merger would lower costs and attract more customers for the families and small businesses that own most of the company’s locations.“Our franchisees instantly grasped the strategic benefit this would bring to their hotels,” Mr. Pacious, who leads Choice Hotels, said on CNBC.As the weeks have passed, however, the reaction has not been positive. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, the target of the proposed deal, rejected the offer from Choice, which is now pursuing a hostile takeover. And in early December, an association representing the majority of hoteliers who own Choice and Wyndham-branded properties came out strongly against it.“We all don’t know what’s driving this merger. Many of us feel it’s not needed,” said Bharat Patel, the chairman of the organization, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. The group surveyed its 20,000 members and found that about 77 percent of respondents who own hotels under either brand or both thought a merger would hurt their business.“I’m not against Choice or Wyndham,” said Mr. Patel, who owns two Choice hotels. “We just need robust competition in the markets.”That opposition illustrates a growing resistance to consolidation in industries that have grown more concentrated in recent years. Even some Wall Street analysts have expressed skepticism that Choice’s proposal is a good idea.The views of hotel owners could become a hurdle for Choice as it seeks approval for a merger from the Federal Trade Commission, which has taken an interest in franchising as evidence has mounted that the economic and legal relationship has increasingly tilted in favor of brand owners and away from franchisees.To understand why franchisees are worried, it’s helpful to understand how hotels are structured.About 70 percent of the nation’s 5.7 million hotel rooms operate under one of the several big national brands like Marriott or Hilton, according to the real estate data firm CoStar. The rest are independent.Over the past few decades, franchise chains have bought one another and merged to the point where the top six companies by number of rooms — Marriott, Hilton, InterContinental, Best Western, Choice and Wyndham — account for about 80 percent of all branded hotels.How a Choice/Wyndham merger would stack upCombining the two companies would create America’s largest branded hotel chain

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Number of hotel rooms in the United States
    Note: Data is as of Dec. 19.Source: CoStar GroupBy The New York TimesUnlike fast food franchisees, hotel owners typically develop or buy their own buildings, representing a multimillion-dollar investment for each property. The industry has drawn thousands of immigrant entrepreneurs from South Asia. Some owners accumulate sprawling portfolios, but most end up with just a few hotels.The average member of the Asian American owners’ group owns just two hotels, most commonly with one of the economy or midscale brands. Choice and Wyndham dominate that segment, with 6,270 and 5,907 hotels in the United States, including Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Quality Inn and Econo Lodge.Being part of a franchise network provides a recognized name, a business plan and collective purchasing that is supposed to give small businesses the benefits of scale. In exchange, hotel owners pay the brands a fee to join, ongoing royalties and other payments for marketing, technology and consulting.As a result, franchisees are effectively customers of the hotel brands. Less competition between hotel chains can leave owners with fewer options and, thus, less leverage to demand better services for a lower cost.Consider the frustrations of Jayanti Patel, who owns a Comfort Inn — one of Choice’s 22 brands — in Gettysburg, Pa.He said Choice had been taking a larger cut, via charges like an $18 monthly fee for reporting his property’s energy use, discounts for rooms booked with rewards programs and penalties when guests file complaints. Mr. Patel also laments declining service, such as from revenue management consultants who are supposed to provide advice that increases his profits. Choice has outsourced this work to a service that operates partly overseas.Mr. Patel said his profit margins had become “thinner and thinner,” and he’s considering signing up with a different brand when his franchise agreement ends in a couple of years. Friends who own Wyndham-branded properties seem happy, so he might adopt one of its brands as long as Choice doesn’t acquire that chain.“When my window comes up in 2026, 99 percent I don’t want to renew my agreement,” Mr. Patel said. “And maybe If I want to go to Wyndham, they have nearly 20 brands, and I lose that opportunity, because it will be the same thing.”Choice argues that as its rivals have expanded and merged, it also needs to grow to offer hotel owners bigger savings on supplies like signage and bedsheets. The company is also promising to bargain down the commissions that hotel owners pay websites like Expedia and Booking.com, which are particularly crucial in the budget segment.“Combining with Wyndham would enable us to continue to deliver enhanced profitability for franchisees — by helping to lower their costs and grow their direct revenue while providing our best-in-class technology platform,” Choice said in a statement.However, many hotel owners say that even if Choice did negotiate lower prices, they are skeptical that they would reap those benefits. In 2020, 90 franchisees filed a lawsuit that accused the company of, among other things, not passing along rebates from contracts with vendors. A judge ruled that hotel owners would have to pursue their claims in separate arbitration cases, and several did.Rich Gandhi, a hotelier in New Jersey, supports a campaign for state legislation that would improve the rights of franchisees in the hospitality industry.Hannah Yoon for The New York TimesChoice prevailed in two of those proceedings. But in one, brought by a hotelier in North Dakota, an arbitrator found this past summer that Choice had “made virtually no efforts to leverage its size, scale and distribution to obtain volume discounts.” He ordered Choice to pay $760,008 in legal fees and compensation. Choice is contesting the award.The case is just one example, but it squares with recent economic research. A 2017 study found that while being part of a hotel franchise system helped bring in guests, it did not lower the cost of doing business compared with operating an independent hotel.But litigating on your own is expensive, which is why few franchisees do so even when they feel they’ve been mistreated.Rich Gandhi, a hotelier in New Jersey, is supporting a campaign for state legislation that would improve the rights of franchisees in the hospitality industry. He leads a three-year-old group called Reform Lodging that is also opposing the merger.Mr. Gandhi has turned four of his Choice-branded hotels into Best Westerns and Red Roof Inns, both non-Choice brands that he said offered better assistance, fewer restrictions and more reasonable fees. Choice, he argued, introduced too many competitors to his area because it makes money from selling new franchises and controlling more of the market, even if the practice squeezes existing owners.“They want the biggest pie, because to them it’s all incremental revenue,” Mr. Gandhi said. “If you keep accumulating all these buildings and provide no support, it’s like one of those old pyramid schemes that’s ready to fall apart, which is exactly what’s happening.”A representative for Choice referred The New York Times to four hoteliers who it said would speak favorably of the merger. Two of them, including the chairman of the Choice Hotels Owners Council — to which all franchisees must belong and pay dues — declined to comment on the record. A third, who owns three Radisson hotels and was happy when Choice bought the brand, said the purchase of Wyndham — a much bigger company — could pose problems.The fourth, a Florida hotelier, Azim Saju, said that despite the loss of competition, if Choice acquired Wyndham the company would still have an incentive to make sure franchisees stayed afloat.“The concern is valid, but the bottom line is that franchising doesn’t do well unless the franchisees are profitable,” Mr. Saju said. “I think Choice has become more conscientious of the importance of franchisee profitability in order to further their success.”The dissatisfaction of hotel owners could hurt Choice’s ability to absorb Wyndham, especially if more franchisees switch to other brands. That prospect has soured some Wall Street analysts on the deal.“In hotel franchising, the critical constituency, as much as consumers walking in the door, is that franchising community,” said David Katz, an analyst who covers the hospitality and gambling industries for Jefferies & Company. “They’re going to own more than 50 percent of the limited service and economy hotels in the United States, and not have the full support of the largest franchisee organization out there? I think that merits further debate.”Franchisee support isn’t important just for morale. It could also sway federal regulators, who have started to take into account the effect of corporate mergers not just on their consumers but also on suppliers like book authors, chicken farmers and Amazon sellers.“Traditionally in antitrust there’s this consumer welfare standard, which is focused on ‘Is this going to be good or bad for consumers?’” said Brett Hollenbeck, an associate professor at the Anderson School of Management of the University of California, Los Angeles. “If the F.T.C. doesn’t feel like this argument will hold sway, they could try a more novel theory, which is that it could hurt franchisees.”Choice said it anticipated that its deal would be approved and was expecting to complete the transaction within a year. Its offer to buy all outstanding Wyndham shares extends through March, when it will try to replace the directors on the company’s board with people who will approve the sale. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    The Upshot of Microsoft’s Activision Deal: Big Tech Can Get Even Bigger

    by

    President Biden’s top antitrust officials have used novel arguments over the past few years to stop tech giants and other large companies from making deals, a strategy that has had mixed success.But on Friday, when Microsoft closed its blockbuster $69 billion acquisition of the video game publisher Activision Blizzard after beating back a federal government challenge, the message sent by the merger’s completion was incontrovertible: Big Tech can still get bigger.“Big Tech companies will certainly be reading the tea leaves,” said Daniel Crane, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “Smart money says merge now while the merging is good.”Microsoft’s purchase of Activision was the latest deal to move forward after a string of failed challenges to mergers by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, which are also confronting the big tech companies through lawsuits arguing they broke antimonopoly laws. Leaders at the two agencies had tried to block at least 10 other deals over the past two years, promising to dislodge longstanding ideas from antitrust law that they said had protected behemoths like Microsoft, Google and Amazon.But their efforts ran headlong into skeptical courts, largely leaving those core assumptions untouched. In the case of Microsoft’s Activision deal, the idea that the F.T.C. questioned was a “vertical” transaction, which refers to mergers between firms that are not primarily direct competitors. Regulators have rarely sued to block such deals, figuring that they generally do not create monopolies.Yet “vertical” deals have been especially common in the tech industry, where companies like Meta, Apple and Amazon have sought to grow and protect their empires by spreading into new business lines.In 2017, for instance, Amazon bought the high-end grocery chain Whole Foods for $13.4 billion. In 2012, Meta acquired the photo-sharing app Instagram for $1 billion and then shelled out nearly $19 billion for the messaging service WhatsApp in 2014. Of the 24 deals worth more than $1 billion completed by the tech giants from 2013 to mid-August of this year, 20 were vertical transactions, according to data provided by Dealogic.The sealing of the Microsoft-Activision deal has buttressed the notion that vertical deals generally are not anticompetitive and can still go through relatively unscathed.“There continues to be the presumption that vertical integration can be a healthy phenomena,” said William Kovacic, a former chair of the F.T.C. The F.T.C. is proceeding with its challenge to the Microsoft-Activision deal even as it has closed, said Victoria Graham, a spokeswoman for the agency, who added that the acquisition was a “threat to competition.” The Justice Department declined to comment. The White House did not immediately have a comment.The idea that vertical transactions were less likely to harm competition than combinations of direct rivals has been ingrained since the late 1970s. In the ensuing decades, the Justice Department and F.T.C. took no challenges to vertical deals to court, instead reaching settlements that allowed companies to proceed with their deals if they changed practices or divested parts of their business.Then, in 2017, the Justice Department sued to block the $85.4 billion merger between the phone giant AT&T and the media company Time Warner, in the agency’s first attempt to stop a vertical deal in decades. A judge ruled against the challenge in 2018, saying he did not see enough evidence of anticompetitive harms from the union of companies in different industries.Mr. Biden’s top antitrust officials — Lina Khan, the F.T.C. chair, and Jonathan Kanter, the top antitrust official at the Justice Department — have been even more aggressive in challenging vertical mergers since they were appointed in 2021.That year, the F.T.C. sued to stop the chip maker Nvidia from buying Arm, which licenses chip technology, and the companies abandoned the deal. In January 2022, the F.T.C. announced it would block Lockheed Martin’s $4.4 billion acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, a missile propulsion systems maker. The companies dropped their merger.But judges rejected many of their efforts for lack of evidence and denied Ms. Khan and Mr. Kanter a courtroom win that would have set new precedent. In 2022, after the D.O.J. sued to block UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition of Change Healthcare, a judge ruled against the agency.Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, challenged Microsoft’s deal for Activision last year. Tom Brenner for The New York TimesThe F.T.C.’s move to block Microsoft’s purchase of Activision last year was a bold effort by Ms. Khan, given that the two companies do not primarily compete with one another. The agency argued that Microsoft, which makes the Xbox gaming console, could harm consumers and competition by withholding Activision’s games from rival consoles and would also use the deal to dominate the young market for game streaming.To show that would not be the case, Microsoft offered to make one of Activision’s major game franchises, Call of Duty, available to other consoles for 10 years. The company also reached a settlement with the European Union, promising to make Activision titles available to competitors in the nascent market for game streaming, which allowed the deal to go through.In July, a federal judge ultimately ruled that the F.T.C. didn’t provide enough evidence that Microsoft intended to forestall competition through the deal and that the software giant’s concession eliminated competition concerns.The agencies are “facing judges who have said 40 years of economics show that vertical mergers are good,” said Nancy Rose, a professor of applied economics at M.I.T. with an expertise in antitrust, who is among a group of scholars who say vertical deals can be harmful to competition. She said the agencies should not back down from challenging vertical mergers, but that regulators would need to be careful to choose cases they can prove with an abundance of evidence.Ms. Khan and Mr. Kanter have said they are willing to take risks and lose lawsuits to expand the boundaries of the law and spark action in Congress to change antitrust rules. Ms. Khan has noted that the F.T.C. has successfully stopped more than a dozen mergers.Mr. Kanter has said that challenges to mergers from the Justice Department and the F.T.C. have deterred problematic deals.“There are fewer problematic mergers that are coming to us in the first place,” he said in a speech at the American Economic Liberties Project, a left-leaning think tank, in August.Still, bigger companies that have the resources to fight back will probably feel more confident challenging regulators after the Microsoft-Activision deal, antitrust lawyers said. The aggressive posture by regulators has simply become the cost of doing business, said Ryan Shores, who led tech antitrust investigations at the D.O.J. during the Trump administration and is now a partner at the law firm Cleary Gottlieb.“A lot of companies have come to the realization that if they have a deal they want to get through, they have to be prepared to litigate,” he said. More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Blasts Google Over Paying $10 Billion a Year to Cut Out Search Rivals

    by

    The Justice Department and 38 states and territories on Tuesday laid out how Google had systematically wielded its power in online search to cow competitors, as the internet giant fiercely parried back, in the opening of the most consequential trial over tech power in the modern internet era.In a packed courtroom at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, the Justice Department and states painted a picture of how Google had used its deep pockets and dominant position, paying $10 billion a year to Apple and others to be the default search provider on smartphones. Google viewed those agreements as a “powerful strategic weapon” to cut out rivals and entrench its search engine, the government said.“This feedback loop, this wheel, has been turning for more than 12 years,” said Kenneth Dintzer, the Justice Department’s lead courtroom lawyer. “And it always turns to Google’s advantage.”Google denied that it had illegally used agreements to exclude its search competitors and said it had simply provided a superior product, adding that people can easily switch which search engine they use. The company also said that internet search extends more broadly than its general search engine and pointed to the many ways that people now find information online, such as Amazon for shopping, TikTok for entertainment and Expedia for travel.“Users today have more search options and more ways to access information online than ever before,” said John E. Schmidtlein, the lawyer who opened for Google.The back-and-forth came in the federal government’s first monopoly trial since it tried to break up Microsoft more than two decades ago. This case — U.S. et al. v. Google — is set to have profound implications not only for the internet behemoth but for a generation of other large tech companies that have come to influence how people shop, communicate, entertain themselves and work.Over the next 10 weeks, the government and Google will present arguments and question dozens of witnesses, digging into how the company came to power and whether it broke the law to maintain and magnify its dominance. The final ruling, by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, could shift the balance of power in the tech industry, which is embroiled in a race over artificial intelligence that could transform and disrupt people’s lives.A government victory could set limits on Google and change its business practices, sending a humbling message to the other tech giants. If Google wins, it could act as a referendum on increasingly aggressive government regulators, raise questions about the efficacy of century-old antitrust laws and further embolden Silicon Valley.“It is a test of whether our current antitrust laws — the Sherman Act, written in 1890 — can adapt to markets that are susceptible to monopolization in the 21st century,” said Bill Baer, a former top antitrust official at the Justice Department, adding that Google was “indisputably powerful.”The case is part of a sweeping effort by the Biden administration and states to rein in the biggest tech companies. The Justice Department has filed a second lawsuit against Google over its advertising technology, which could go to trial as early as next year. The Federal Trade Commission is separately moving toward a trial in an antitrust lawsuit against Meta. Investigations remain open in efforts that could lead to antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and Apple.The Justice Department filed the case accusing Google of illegally maintaining its dominance in search in October 2020. Months later, a group of attorneys general from 35 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia filed their own lawsuit arguing that Google had abused its monopoly over search. Judge Mehta is considering both lawsuits during the trial.The case centers on the agreements that Google reached with browser developers, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers to use Google as the default search engine on their products. Since the lawsuit was filed, more than five million documents and depositions of more than 150 witnesses have been submitted to the court. Last month, Judge Mehta narrowed the scope of the trial, while allowing the core claims of monopoly abuse in search to remain.The trial unfolded on Tuesday in Courtroom 10 at Washington’s federal courthouse, a complex minutes from Capitol Hill. It drew a large crowd, with some people standing in line to enter as early as 4:30 a.m. Officials from the Google rivals Yelp and Microsoft also attended, as did dozens of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department, states and Google after years of work on the case.Judge Mehta began the proceedings punctually. In the government’s opening statement, Mr. Dintzer focused on the search agreements Google had struck with Apple and others. He referenced internal company documents that described how Google would not share revenue with Apple without “default placement” on its devices and how it worked to ensure that Apple couldn’t redirect searches to its Siri assistant.“Your honor, this is a monopolist flexing,” Mr. Dintzer said.In blunt language, Mr. Dintzer also argued that Google had tried to hide documents from antitrust enforcers by including lawyers on conversations and marking them as subject to attorney-client privilege. He showed a message from Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, asking for the chat history to be turned off in one conversation.“They turned history off, your honor, so they could rewrite it here in this courtroom,” Mr. Dintzer said.William Cavanaugh, a lawyer for the states, echoed Mr. Dintzer’s concerns about Google’s agreements to become the default search engines on smartphones. He added that Google had limited a product used to place ads on other search engines to hurt Microsoft, which makes the Bing search engine.In response, Mr. Schmidtlein, Google’s lawyer, argued that the company’s default agreements with browser makers don’t lock up the market the way that the Justice Department said. Browser makers such as Apple and Mozilla both promote other search engines, he said, and it was easy for users to switch their default search engine.Using a slide show, Mr. Schmidtlein demonstrated the number of taps or clicks required to change the default on popular smartphones. People who wished to switch their search engine but did not know how could search Google for instructions or watch a video tutorial on YouTube, which Google owns, he said.The government’s evidence was coming from “snippets and out-of-context” emails, he said.The lawyers also sparred over whether Google was as dominant as the government claimed. The Justice Department and the states said Google competes primarily with broad search engines that act as a single place to look for multiple types of information. But Mr. Schmidtlein said Google’s universe of competitors was wider, including online retailers like Amazon, food delivery apps like DoorDash and travel booking sites like Expedia.In the afternoon, the Justice Department called Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, as its first witness to establish that the company had long been aware of its power in search and deliberately tried to sidestep antitrust scrutiny.In more than three hours of testimony, Mr. Varian was asked about views that he shared with other Google employees on the power of defaults, the threat of Microsoft’s entry into search and his awareness of language that could invite the attention of antitrust regulators. The Justice Department drew from Mr. Varian’s emails and memos from as far back as the early 2000s.Mr. Varian is scheduled to return to the witness stand on Wednesday.Nico Grant More