Report from the MediaPost
In Brief – Ohio State Judge James Schuck has dismissed state Attorney General David Yost’s lawsuit arguing that Google should governed under state law as a “common carrier’, comparable to a telecommunications company or electric utility, and therefore was prohibited from preferencing its own products and services in its search results. In his order throwing out Yost’s lawsuit, the Delaware County Common Pleas Court Judge flatly stated, “Google Search does not meet the definition of a common carrier under Ohio law.” Yost argued that Google is a common carrier because it’s available to all web users, garners ad revenue by transporting information and provides services that concern the public. Google argued that it doesn’t “transport” people or property, and its search results are individually tailored. Schuck backed the Google reading of the law, noting that under Ohio’s definition of common carrier, companies must “transport persons or property for hire,” and “undertakes to carry for all people indifferently.” The judge added that Google makes judgment calls when determining search results.
Context – As this lawsuit disappears into the mist more than four years after it was filed, note how much the policy and political dynamics have changed. Arguing over the “fairness” of Google search results is nearly as old as the commercial internet because every Google algorithm change benefits some websites and appears to hurt others. The EU has since enacted the Digital Markets Act to regulate Google search and address the self-preferencing concerns of critics like Yost. While US regulators have rejected similar complaints, Yelp, a long-time Google critic, is now suing Google for anti-competitive treatment following the landmark 2024 antitrust ruling by Federal Judge Amit Mehta that Google search was a monopoly. Finally, the argument that giant online platforms like Google were “common carriers” that could not discriminate was also made by many conservatives, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who claimed the platforms engaged in “ideological censorship” that was not permitted for common carriers, although the argument has appeared less since Elon Musk bought Twitter.