Google fought hard to be the default search engine on smartphones and browsers so it “can manipulate your selections,” an expert on human behavior testified for the federal government on the closely watched antitrust trial Thursday.
Antonio Rangel, a behavioral economist and professor on the California Institute of Technology, took the stand for the second day and said Google has leaned heavily on default settings to keep users hooked on its search engine and other lucrative services.
“If I can move your eyes, if I can manipulate your fixations, I can manipulate your selections quite a bit,” Rangel said, according to Bloomberg.
Rangel highlighted the importance of default status for winning customers, stating that users generally keep on with whatever browser is ready because the default option on their computers and smartphones.
“Search engine defaults generate a large and robust bias towards the default,” Rangel said. “Defaults have a robust impact on consumer decisions.”
Google attorneys fired back during cross-examination by reiterating their central argument that customers select its search engine due to its quality, not its default status on phones and browsers.
On Wednesday, Rangel discussed various instances by which Google’s actions demonstrated the importance of default settings to its bottom line, including one by which the corporate’s behavioral economics team generated “tons of of thousands and thousands of dollars in revenue” by adding a $10 minimum default spending setting for digital advertisers.
Rangel cited a 2015 email by which a Google worker warned that the lack of default status on Apple’s Safari browser can be a “code red” for the corporate.
![Antonio Rangel](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/09/NYPICHPDPICT000039570090.png?w=552)
“Our brand is in good standing amongst iPhone users…but our position continues to be very vulnerable if defaults were to change,” the e-mail cited by Rangel said.
The Justice Department is arguing in a trial that began on Tuesday that the Alphabet unit sought agreements with mobile carriers to win powerful default positions on smartphones to dominate search.
The antitrust case – the most important of its kind in greater than 20 years – will ultimately hinge on whether Google is set to have taken anticompetitive steps to cut off rivals while constructing its search behemoth.
In testimony on Wednesday, Rangel questioned Google’s argument that users could easily switch their default search engine, telling the court that he acquired an Android smartphone and located that it took 10 steps for the owner to switch Google for Microsoft’s Bing.
“That’s considerable alternative friction,” Rangel said.
![Google](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/09/NYPICHPDPICT000006347844.jpg?w=1024)
Google lawyer John Schmidtlein cited a years-old internal Microsoft document regarding search engine use on early BlackBerry smartphones.
On the time, Verizon Blackberries got here equipped with Microsoft’s Bing search engine because the default option, while T-Mobile’s devices used Yahoo and Sprint used Google. According to the document, nearly all of users still opted to use Google nearly all of the time.
As an illustration, users with Verizon Blackberries and Bing as their default search engine purportedly still used Google 91% of the time.
In the course of the trial’s opening arguments, Justice Department attorneys said Google paid “greater than $10 billion per 12 months” to major corporations, including smartphone makers Apple and Samsung, browser operators like Mozilla and wireless providers equivalent to AT&T, to secure a 91% share of the search market.
On Wednesday, former Google executive Chris Barton, who worked on the corporate’s partnerships with major mobile carriers from 2004 to 2011, said the corporate was well aware of the ability of default search setting and enlisted many executives to negotiate exclusive status with partners.
![Google](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/09/NYPICHPDPICT000029230038.jpg?w=1024)
Barton said the corporate knew users would “difficult time finding or changing to Google” if Microsoft’s Bing service was their default search engine – though he added that other corporations sought to employ the identical tactic.
The case’s end result won’t be determined by a jury. As an alternative, US District Judge Amit Mehta will reach a determination on the end result.
If the DOJ is victorious, Mehta could order Google to be broken up or to discontinue specific business practices.
No matter its end result, the case could have wide-ranging implications for Big Tech firms, including rivals equivalent to Amazon and Apple, which have also faced scrutiny from federal regulators over their business practices.
With Post wires