True, but I think it has to do with the fact that Google is 90% of the supermarkets in town and most people don't know that there are other supermarkets at all.
Google isn't IE in 2000, it's Kleenex or Jello-o.
Only in the US. It's Google in most of the world.
How exactly does Google possess or control the supply of searches? You are always free to use any of several other search engines: Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Baidu, and quite a few others. Facebook and Apple are getting into the game as well.
There is this thing called a "dominant position". There are formulas which are used to calculate if a company has a dominant position. If they do have, it is up to the court to decide whether they are abusing their dominant position.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
It's not at all clear that anything Google does prevents competition. Indeed, if you google "search engines", Google itself doesn't even appear on the first page. I get DogPile, DuckDuckGo, Bing, and Wikipedia as my top four hits. Then there's something about "say goodbye to Google: 14 alternatives". If I search for "webmail", gmail is the eighth hit. Based on my 16-odd years of daily use of Google, it hardly seems as though Google is trying to limit or downplay the competition.
The EU complaint appears to be that Google displays a pattern of promoting its own products in searches. I doubt they can prove that; it's likely that different results are promoted based on algorithms that target user preferences and history, not an evil plan to make the world buy Google services. Why would Google do that? It's a stupid thing to do and they already have a dominant position as you say, so they don't need to. No one says "let me bing that for you". No one says "just look it up on yahoo". Google has the dominant mindshare and they simply can sit back and enjoy being the success that they are.
That's the common-language definition, but that's somewhat tangential in discussing legal action. The legal criteria in US antitrust jurisprudence is actually pricing power, I think the same is true in the EU (both US and EU antitrust regulations do, though to a lesser extent than monopolies with pricing power, regulate some anticompetitive actions of non-monopolies as well -- the EU, as I understand, goes further than the US in this area.)
Even if it were not, finding the alternative supermarket is doing exactly the same thing, but not quite as well, may be disappointing?
So the alternatives are that it's an awareness problem, or (if it's not, as you're asserting) that people know and don't care, in which case forcing Google to change policy seems like it wouldn't actually be a move benefiting the people. Why restrict a business practice that most people don't actually think is bad?
(So I think lack of awareness is more likely, personally).
Disclaimer: could be very personal ; Google tracks what i'm interested in AND my queries are tailored to Google I guess.
Someone would need to pay for it and its likely part of what they want money from Google for.