The change in legal thinking has been that fewer and fewer situations are held "per se" anticompetitive in US law and cases have to be analyzed by the "test of

The change in legal thinking has been that fewer and fewer situations are held "per se" anticompetitive in US law and cases have to be analyzed by the "test of reason". Even vertical pricing actions (fixing ceiling and in some situations floors) have been held to be not anticompetitive. The article has links to cases where these arguments (known as Chicago School) have been cited and have been precedent setting in American case law The net result is Google can't be prosecuted just because it's a monopoly. It will require provable consumer harm (not necessarily just industry harm) on a case by case basis (not just hypothetical) to win the case.