CQ Researcher on Friday released a 24-page analysis titled “Google’s Dominance, Is the online-search giant too powerful?” It takes on the fast-growing list of antitrust and privacy questions swirling around the biggest company in tech.

The report follows on the heels of last week’s announcement that Google’s head of public policy, Alan Davidson, is leaving the company for unspecified reasons.

Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project Director, John Simpson, was asked to answer the question – Is Google Too Dominant? – in an oped for the report. His YES response, appearing opposite Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s NO, concludes that:

It is Google’s immense database of consumer information, intentions and desires that gives the Internet giant its power.

Google’s dominance of search forces advertisers to use Google’s advertising products — those that do not will not reach their customers. How Google tweaks its proprietary search algorithms can ensure a business’s success or doom it to failure. Google’s practices determine much of the Internet experience for most consumers by determining what they view. Google demands openness of others, but when it comes to its own activities it is a closed black box.

People who use Google aren’t its customers. We are the Internet giant’s product. The immense database about us, largely gathered without our informed consent, is used to target ads and bring Google billions in advertising profits.

This question of Google’s dominance came to a head in Washington DC one day last month, when Chairman Eric Schmidt was called to testify before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Google faced tough questions from Senators on whether Google uses the twin black boxes of its search and ad algorithms to give itself unfair advantage over its competitors.

Consumer Watchdog simultaneously staged a Senate protest, bringing mimes to track Eric Schmidt and Senate staff around the Dirksen Senate Office Building. They dramatized that an activity that is creepy in real life, stalking people as their go about their day, is Google’s business model on the Internet.

CQ's analysis poses some of the questions that federal regulators, Congress, and enforcement offices in other countries are seeking to answer as they investigate Google's market dominance:

Does Google wield too much control over the Internet?

Evidence suggests it does. Google controls 70% of the US search market, and up to 90% in other countries, controls nearly 80% of US online advertising, is the default search engine on most smartphones, and has rapidly gained 40% of the market for smartphone operating systems.

Does Google violate antitrust law through anti-competitive behavior?

Google competitor Yelp testified at the Senate hearing that Google took its local reviews without permission, then gave the company an ultimatum when it objected: Allow us to use your content for free, or disappear from Google search entirely. To disappear from Google search results is the kiss of death for an Internet firm. As CQ explains: “The dustup over Yelp is part of a much bigger controversy over whether Google, famous for its “Don’t Be Evil” motto, leverages its size and scale to bully rivals, dictate unfair business terms and give preferential treatment to its own brands. In addition to the FTC probe, the European Union (EU), South Korea and at least five states are conducting similar inquiries.”

Should the federal government break Google into separate companies?

The jury is out, but strict application of antitrust law could thwart Google’s most flagrant anticompetitive practices. Simply separating search from advertising could split the massive amount of data that is the source of Google’s power into less dangerous segments. But breaking the company up isn’t the only solution. Providing greater openness and transparency in Google’s ad platform, through government regulation, would contribute to consumer choice as well as foster competition. And "Do Not Track Me" regulations would loosen Google’s powerful grasp on the Internet and give consumers the true control over their online activity that they deserve.

Giving consumers that control over their online lives is the reason Consumer Watchdog launched our campaign two years ago to increase public understanding and government scrutiny of the massive data-collection apparatus that drives Google’s business.