On Tuesday, Google sidestepped a potential breakup of its search engine monopoly after a federal judge dismissed the most severe measures proposed by the Department of Justice. This decision frustrated critics who considered it merely a slap on the wrist for the significant antitrust case against the tech giant.
US District Judge Amit Mehta opted against forcing Google to divest itself of the Chrome browser or the Android operating system, despite the government’s calls for these mandatory sales.
In his court order, Mehta noted, “The plaintiffs had strong demands for the sale of these key assets, but Google did not misuse them to achieve illegal control.”
Rather than issuing harsh penalties, Mehta took a more measured approach during the trial’s relief phase, which featured a three-week hearing in April. He mandated that Google share its search data with competitors to enhance market competition.
While Google is restricted from entering exclusive agreements for internet searches, it isn’t entirely barred from making payments to partnerships with companies like Apple and AT&T.
The federal government contended that these kinds of transactions are crucial for sustaining Google’s monopoly.
Following the ruling at around 4:30 PM, Google’s stock surged over 6% in after-hours trading.
Apple’s shares rose nearly 4% as well, reflecting that Mehta’s decision could impact a substantial revenue stream for struggling iPhone manufacturers.
Matt Stoller, known for his antitrust activism and criticism of Google, referred to Mehta’s decision as a “major whim” and quite “weak.”
“Mehta has concluded that this court can maintain Google’s monopoly,” he expressed on X.
Other tech critics also expressed their disappointment in Mehta’s ruling, which many found perplexing.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Freedom Project, remarked, “You find someone committing bank fraud, and you just ask them to send a thank you note to the victims. This is absurd.”
Hegde emphasized that Google shouldn’t be shielded from the consequences of monopoly practices and encouraged the DOJ to appeal the court’s decision.
Following the ruling, the Department of Justice had no immediate comment.
Sacha Haworth, from the Tech Surveillance Project, suggested that Mehta seemed more content that Google would operate as it wishes instead of enforcing the law against it.
Mehta did indicate that if the remedies proved ineffective, the court could reassess its position.
“For now, Google can continue to fund distributors for default deployments. There’s significant reasoning behind not upsetting the current arrangements and letting market forces take their course,” he wrote.
This development concludes a five-year legal skirmish that could reshape the internet landscape and threatens the foundation of Google’s operations, marking it as one of the most important antitrust cases in recent decades.
Google has previously expressed its intention to appeal Mehta’s earlier ruling that identified its monopoly.
Mehta’s ruling largely aligned with arguments from other Big Tech companies, which asserted that forced sales of Chrome or Android could destabilize them and pose risks to U.S. national security.
