> The ones getting paid tens billions of dollars annually seems like the obvious answer to me.

So what, the seller on any side of a transaction is the one who has the market power?

To make it simpler: if there was one employer in the entirety of Earth and 7 billion people who wanted a job - since the employer is paying the employee, the employee would have the market power?

Microsoft argued it wasn't using monopoly power, because Windows was priced lower than the profit-maximizing price a monopoly would use. The Justice Department argued that was evidence of anti-competitive behavior: Microsoft chose to deter competition with an unnaturally low price.

Perhaps the argument is that Google is overpaying, and that's anti-competitive.

To make you analogy more accurate, this single employer would be paying the employees not to work for anyone else. And in that case, yes, the employees would be the ones that have the power since they are getting money for nothing.

It's not for nothing though - the employer is buying their productive capacity. The fact that the employer chooses to do nothing with it is entirely irrelevant.

Same issue with Google - by using their market power to monopolize search power across devices and OSes, they are effectively locking out any other potential entrants. That this is being done to enhance a completely different line of business (ads) is classic anti-competitive behavior.

What you are describing is a monopsony, they are illegal, and the employer is considered to have the most power in that relation because the employees are atomized.

Do you know what a monopsony?

Not a monopoly. A monopsony.

Anti trust law prohibits both monopolies and monopsonys from engaging in anti competitive behavior.

You are trying to claim that monopsonys engaging in anti-competitive behavior are not illegal, when they are.