US Federal Judge Orders Major Operational Changes for Google in Landmark Antitrust Ruling
A US federal judge mandated significant changes to Google's search engine operations and distribution contracts, addressing its illegal monopoly power, while avoiding a complete breakup.
Google won’t have to sell Chrome, judge rules
ARS Technica
Subscribe to unlock this story
We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $5/month, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!
Get StartedHave an account? Sign in
Overview
- A US federal judge ruled against Google in an antitrust case, citing its illegal monopoly power and mandating significant operational changes to its search engine.
- Google must now share specific search data with qualified competitors and terminate exclusive distribution contracts for its search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini apps.
- The ruling, while imposing new restrictions like choice screens, spared Google from a complete breakup or being forced to sell its Chrome web browser or Android.
- These new restrictions will last for six years and be overseen by a special technical committee, aiming to enhance competition within the digital search market.
- Google plans to appeal the antitrust law violation finding and proposed remedy, despite its parent company Alphabet's shares surging positively after the ruling.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame the Google antitrust ruling as largely insufficient, a "let-off" for the tech giant. They emphasize the "subdued" nature of the decision and the "light-handed punishment," highlighting the continued financial gains for Google and Apple. The collective narrative suggests the court failed to effectively curb Google's monopolistic power, despite the initial finding of an illegal monopoly.
"Mehta ended up crafting a subdued ruling that rejected the Justice Department’s push to have Google sell its popular Chrome web browser and block the company from paying — more than $20 billion annually — to make its search engine the default on popular devices and web browsers."
Associated Press"The decision was undoubtedly a win for Google, and parent company Alphabet’s stock."
Gizmodo"The judge is trying to rein in Google by prohibiting some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services."
ABC News"Judge Mehta's ruling, while seen as a major win for the tech industry, has left some experts questioning whether it truly addresses the monopolistic practices of Google."
BBC News"Google has avoided the most severe consequences for its search business nearly one year after a federal court ruled it held an illegal monopoly over the online search market."
Semafor"While this ruling is a pretty clear win for Google, it still technically lost the case."
ARS Technica"Shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company, jumped by more than 6% shortly after the judge's ruling was published."
BBC News"The good news for Google is that it won’t have to sell off its Chrome browser, which was a very real possibility."
Gizmodo"Mehta's orders fall far short of the U.S. Justice Department's most aggressive proposals, including the spinoff of Chrome."
NPR"The judge’s restrictions centered on the exclusivity arrangements that prevented potential rivals from gaining access to devices."
Deadline"Mehta is trying to rein in Google by placing new restraints on some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services."
CBS News"The judge is trying to rein in Google by prohibiting some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services."
Associated Press"Google doesn't have to sell its wildly popular Chrome web browser, but can't engage in exclusive search deals, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday."
CNET"Google will not be forced to break up its search business, but a federal judge has tentatively ordered other changes to the tech giant’s business practices to keep it from further anticompetitive behavior."
TechCrunch"The ruling in the Department of Justice’s landmark antitrust case against Google-parent Alphabet, stopped short of what could have been the government’s most severe action in decades to curb the power of a monopoly—and acknowledged the potentially massive impact that artificial intelligence technology could have on the search market."
FortuneArticles (23)
Center (15)
FAQ
The judge ordered Google to share certain search data with qualified competitors, end exclusive distribution contracts for its search engine and affiliated apps like Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini, and implement choice screens to increase market competition.
The judge decided that imposing operational restrictions and ending exclusive contracts would sufficiently address Google's illegal monopoly power without the need for a complete breakup or forcing Google to sell key products like Chrome or Android.
The new operational restrictions imposed on Google will last for six years and will be overseen by a special technical committee to ensure compliance and enhance competition in the search market.
Google announced plans to appeal the finding of antitrust violations and the proposed remedies, despite Alphabet's shares increasing following the ruling.
The ruling aims to increase competition in the digital search market by forcing Google to share data with competitors and removing exclusive distribution contracts, potentially leading to more choices for consumers and innovation among search providers.
History
- 14d
5 articles - 14d
12 articles