Android - Is There a Viable Monopolization Case?

11 Pages Posted: 23 Aug 2018

Date Written: August 13, 2018


This paper considers the viability of a Sherman Act § 2 enforcement action in respect of Google’s Android operating system. It discusses the applicability of the D.C. Circuit’s 2001 Microsoft opinion in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain its Windows operating system monopoly. The paper explains why, despite some superficial similarities, the facts that gave rise to liability in Microsoft are different in crucial respects from those pertaining to Android. The paper concludes 1) that Google lacks monopoly power in a properly defined market in which Android competes; and 2) that Google has not engaged in the type of anticompetitive conduct condemned in Microsoft. The facts underlying Microsoft and the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning strongly suggest that an enforcement action in the United States is unlikely to succeed notwithstanding the European Commission’s July 2018 Android decision.

Keywords: monopoly, antitrust, Microsoft, Google, Android, tech, single-firm conduct, European Commission, Sherman Act § 2, market power

JEL Classification: K21

Suggested Citation

Houck, Stephen, Android - Is There a Viable Monopolization Case? (August 13, 2018). Available at SSRN: or

Stephen Houck (Contact Author)

Offit Kurman, P.A. ( email )

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics