As long as there is credible competition, market forces work. When Google (or MS, or Amazon, or...) successfully destroy all of their competition, that's when consumers suffer, and that's when it's too late for regulators to effectively solve the problem. See the cable/telco duopolies for an example of that problem in action.

So, sure. The fight to destroy all competitors is good for consumers while it lasts. Once it's over and there's a monopoly or cartel (as in the case of last-mile internet), the consumer is at the mercy of the monopolist. History indicates the monopolist will not be benevolent.

History also indicates the monopolist will leverage their increased power to manipulate the legal environment to prevent new competitors from springing up. In addition to the telcos, the fossil fuel industry is an example of that lately; despite renewables being cheaper and creating more jobs, more than half of our elected officials in the US are working hard to ensure another decade of fossil fuel energy dominance.

I should have said looking at whether it is harming consumers now isn't the point. It's how it harms consumers over time. The chilling effect on innovation, the monoculture/fragility, the lock-in will hurt consumers in the long run.

People can compete with Google on quality of reviews. This is attempt to make Google less useful.

I think the position the powers that take is that competition is intrinsically consumer beneficial, with the inverse assumption that anything that harms competition harms consumers.