>Using one market (gmail) as leverage in another market (chat) is basically the definition of monopolization No its not. Unless you're claiming that this is a

>Using one market (gmail) as leverage in another market (chat) is basically the definition of monopolization No its not. Unless you're claiming that this is a form of product tying, but that would require that 1. Gmail held a monopoly or near monopoly over the email market at the time 2. hangouts was a service that people needed (or that to use gmail, you also were forced to use hangouts) Neither of those were the case.