End Google’s Exclusive Search Deals, Not Chrome
▼ Summary
– U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated antitrust law by maintaining an illegal monopoly in internet search.
– Google is prohibited from entering into exclusive contracts for Search, Chrome, Assistant, or Gemini products.
– The court did not require Google to divest Chrome or Android, rejecting the DOJ’s request for forced divestiture of these assets.
– The ruling impacts Google’s core business by ending exclusive search deals and requiring data sharing with competitors.
– Google plans to appeal the decision, meaning enforcement of penalties could be delayed for years.
A federal judge has delivered a significant blow to Google’s longstanding dominance in the search market, ruling that the tech giant must end its exclusive search agreements and provide competitors with access to valuable search data. While the decision stops short of forcing a sale of Chrome or Android, it directly targets the contractual arrangements that have solidified Google’s overwhelming market control.
The ruling represents a major shift in how Google can conduct its search business, particularly its lucrative default search agreements with companies like Apple, which reportedly net the iPhone maker $20 billion annually. These exclusive deals have long been criticized for stifling competition and reinforcing Google’s near-monopoly in search. Though the company avoided the more drastic measure of being forced to divest its Chrome browser, a key source of user behavior data, the court found that Google’s practices unlawfully restricted market competition.
Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court concluded that Google violated antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly in internet search. The decision follows a lengthy legal battle that began when the Department of Justice filed suit in 2020, culminating in a ten-week trial last year. In his ruling, the judge noted that plaintiffs “overreached” in seeking the divestiture of Chrome or Android, acknowledging that while these assets are central to Google’s ecosystem, they were not used to enforce illegal restraints.
Looking ahead, Google has announced its intention to appeal the decision, meaning it could be years before any changes take effect. In the meantime, the case sets a powerful precedent for how regulators approach dominant tech platforms and their use of exclusionary agreements to maintain market power.
(Source: Search Engine Land)
