Monopoly is defined differently in the US and Europe. In Europe a monopoly is permitted so long as the ability to exert dominance in one area does not allow gai

Monopoly is defined differently in the US and Europe. In Europe a monopoly is permitted so long as the ability to exert dominance in one area does not allow gaining dominance in another. In the US a monopoly is disallowed if it leads to an inefficient market that makes customers pay more. Imho both are unworkable and useless definitions for different reasons. But, since this is a US trial, it must be shown that Google make customers pay more for goods and services than they could under fair market conditions. The problem is that Google (and most of its competitors) offer services "for free". As we know, it's not "free", but customers pay with data taken as payment in lieu. This means the justice system must redefine "free" to incorporate the market price of that data. This is the real cost the customer is paying. Nobody wants to do that, because nobody (including government) wants an overt acknowledgement of the economics of surveillance capitalism and the entire modern surveillance industry. It is an entire economy set up in parallel to the visible monetary one. So the proceedings are being cast in all kinds of unusual distortions to avoid this happening.