Consumers are benefiting from Google’s dominance in search, Google-backed trade group says

Antitrust cases don’t often grab the attention of average Americans, but a recent case the government concocted against Google deserves more attention than it has received. The ruling’s ramifications will have long-lasting effects that extend far beyond Big Tech, and American consumers will lose out.

Google’s recent defeat in its biggest antitrust battle in more than 20 years is a blow to Silicon Valley. Despite accusations of anticompetitive practices, Google really lost because it excels at what it does—the world leader in online search.

America’s 30th President Calvin Coolidge once said that “the chief occupation of the American people is business,” and that Americans are “deeply interested in making, buying, selling, investing, and making the world prosper.” We have built a culture that is committed to innovation. Our best inventions and companies are known around the world. Google is one of those American products and companies that are known and used by people all over the world.

Google, as everyone knows, was founded in a modest California garage in 1998 by Stanford University graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They had a vision that has guided the company for the past 26 years—a passion “for organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful.”

In short? They set out to create the world’s largest web search experience. And, to a remarkable degree, they accomplished exactly that.

In fact, Google’s dominance in this space was even acknowledged by the presiding judge during the hearing. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta commented that Google had built “the highest-quality search engine in the industry.” That sounds like a ringing endorsement, not a reason to file antitrust charges against Google. Even Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella admitted in his deposition that Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, is inferior to Google.

The case, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, is based on a novel antitrust theory. Rather than determining whether consumers were harmed by anticompetitive practices, the Justice Department argues that Google’s market dominance is evidence of its anticompetitive practices. How else, the case argues, could the company have 90% of the market?

Judge Mehta sided with the government, ruling against Google and Apple. The two companies entered into a product placement agreement to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone. It is worth noting that Apple received $20 billion for the agreement, but as a company that is also committed to delivering the best value to its customers, the agreement meant that the two companies presented the best product. Apple executives testified that “there is no price that Microsoft could ever offer” to make Bing the default search engine on their devices.

Customers who purchased iPhones were not limited in any way nor did they have the option to download Bing or any other search engine as their default.

Consumers seek out Google because it is reliable and fast, and no other company offers a product that comes close to Google Search. In the European Union, when competitors complained about Google, regulators required all new phones to have a “choice screen.” What was the result? Consumers had to take an extra step to choose Google. Yet Google remained the default choice on the vast majority of phones.

The judge and the Justice Department missed a simple fact: Google dominates this market because its product is the most frequently chosen by consumers.

In business, and especially in the tech industry, unpredictability is a defining characteristic. The ever-changing landscape means companies thrive when they anticipate where the market is headed.

Google’s founders set out to make the web more user-friendly because they knew that was where the market was headed. People would want faster, better, more efficient, and more personalized search results. And the reason people still choose Google for their online searches is because the company is still obsessed with delivering the best search results.

The traditional consumer welfare standard in antitrust law was rejected in this Google lawsuit. Far from being harmed by Google’s practices, consumers had benefited from them for two decades.

As Judge Mehta noted during the hearing, “the significance and importance of this case is not lost on me, not only for Google but for the public.” He was right. The significance of this ruling, if upheld on appeal, will have a negative impact on future companies that innovate and dominate the marketplace because they deliver exactly what their customers want.

Google’s 90% market share is not the result of alleged anti-competitive behavior or attempts to block potential competitors. Google reigns as the leader in search because the competition offers a worse search experience.

There’s a reason the most popular search query on Bing is “Google.”

More must-see comments posted by Fortune: