Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a lawsuit against Google in an effort to have the tech giant’s search engine be declared a public utility. According to Yost, the search engine qualifies under Ohio common law as a “common carrier or public utility.”

The complaint tackles several issues with the giant tech. The first is their domination in the online search engine industry. The complaint explains, “Google dominates internet search, globally and domestically. Nearly 90% of all internet searches are conducted through Google. Google’s dominance continues to trend upwards, particularly on mobile devices, where Google’s internet search share is near 95% or more.”

This domination of the industry alleged by Yost is a reflection of several antitrust actions that have been filed against Google in the past several months. By dominating the industry, users are not getting exposure to some of the other competitors and their products.

Along with market domination, another issue alleged in the complaint is that while Ohioans have easy access to the search engine, those who use the tool are not getting fair access to information. The AG accuses the search engine of using algorithms that prioritize Google products, even if other websites or products could be more beneficial to users. For example, a user who searches for a flight will be shown results from Google Flights. This preference eclipses what a user might see from other providers such as Travelocity or Orbitz. By dominating the field and restricting the competition, users are not seeing products outside of Google that can serve them just as well.

Yost argues that this practice has allowed Google to have a competitive advantage in the market, simply crushing other competitors. Data supports Yost’s claim regarding the popularity of Google’s search engine. Recent data highlights that on a global level, 76% - 78% of desktop and mobile device online searches take place on Google’s platform.

The complaint asserts, “Google’s dominant market position allows it to continue to refine its search algorithms to render Google with a competitive advantage over other search engines, leading to more market dominance by Google Search.” The complaint warns of the potential harm that this may cause by declaring, “This ‘virtuous cycle’ for Google assures its market dominant position. It is extremely unlikely that Google Search will be displaced as the dominant provider of internet search in the foreseeable future.”

As a dominating force in the market, Yost explains that it’s Google’s duty to offer competitors rights equal to its own in regards to advertisements, integrated specialized searches, direct answers, and other features that are offered to Google’s own products. By expanding competitor’s rights, users will be able to get a better sense of what products are out there, allowing them to make the best choice for themselves.

This lawsuit is the second anti-competition suit filed against Google by Yost. In December, Yost was one of 37 attorneys general who went after the tech giant in a federal lawsuit alleging its actions violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.