Google on Tuesday avoided a forced breakup of its online search monopoly after a federal judge rejected the harshest remedies proposed by the Justice Department — sparking furor from critics for the slap on the wrist within the landmark antitrust case.
US District Judge Amit Mehta said he wouldn’t require Google – which he had earlier dubbed a “monopolist” – to dump its Chrome web browser or its Android operating system software, because the feds had requested.
“Plaintiffs overreached in searching for forced divesture of those key assets, which Google didn’t use to effect any illegal restraints,” Mehta wrote in his court order.
As an alternative, Mehta opted for a lighter touch in issuing his verdict within the trial’s treatment phase, which included three weeks of hearings in April. He ordered Google to share its search data with rivals to spice up competition.
Google can also’t enter into exclusive deals for web search, nevertheless it won’t be barred entirely from making payments to Apple, AT&T and other partners to make sure its search engine and other services are set because the default option on most smartphones, Mehta ruled.
“Cutting off payments from Google almost definitely will impose substantial — in some cases, crippling — downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban,” Mehta wrote.
The feds argued at trial that such deals were essential to maintaining Google’s monopoly.
“Today’s treatment order agreed with the necessity to restore competition to the long-monopolized search market, and we at the moment are weighing our options and considering through whether the ordered relief goes far enough in serving that goal,” the DOJ said in a press release.
Google’s stock surged greater than 6% in after-hours trading following the ruling’s release around 4:30 p.m.
Apple stock also up nearly 4% in after-hours trading. Mehta’s ruling spares a $20 billion revenue stream for the struggling iPhone maker.
Matt Stoller, a outstanding antitrust advocate and Google critic, described Mehta’s decision as a “big whiff” and “weak.”
“Mehta just decided that the court can let Google keep its monopoly,” he wrote on X.
Other Big Tech watchdogs also slammed Mehta over the head-scratching ruling.
“You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank after which sentence him to writing a thanks note for the loot,” said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
“Similarly, you don’t find Google accountable for monopolization after which write a treatment that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless treatment to essentially the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a whole failure of his duty and should be appealed.”
Hegde called on the DOJ to appeal the choice.
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, said Mehta “was much more willing to let Google proceed bending the web and our economy to its will than enforcing the law.”
Mehta did write that the court could revisit his decision if the remedies aren’t effective.
“For now, Google might be permitted to pay distributors for default placement. There are strong reasons to not jolt the system and to permit market forces to do the work.”
The ruling caps a five-year legal fight that had the potential to upend the web and dismantle the core of Google’s business. It was considered essentially the most consequential Big Tech antitrust case in a long time.
Google had earlier vowed to appeal Mehta’s earlier ruling that it holds a monopoly.
Mehta’s ruling was largely according to proposals made by the Big Tech giant, which had argued that any forced selloff of Chrome or Android would break them and will even threaten US national security.
Google on Tuesday avoided a forced breakup of its online search monopoly after a federal judge rejected the harshest remedies proposed by the Justice Department — sparking furor from critics for the slap on the wrist within the landmark antitrust case.
US District Judge Amit Mehta said he wouldn’t require Google – which he had earlier dubbed a “monopolist” – to dump its Chrome web browser or its Android operating system software, because the feds had requested.
“Plaintiffs overreached in searching for forced divesture of those key assets, which Google didn’t use to effect any illegal restraints,” Mehta wrote in his court order.
As an alternative, Mehta opted for a lighter touch in issuing his verdict within the trial’s treatment phase, which included three weeks of hearings in April. He ordered Google to share its search data with rivals to spice up competition.
Google can also’t enter into exclusive deals for web search, nevertheless it won’t be barred entirely from making payments to Apple, AT&T and other partners to make sure its search engine and other services are set because the default option on most smartphones, Mehta ruled.
“Cutting off payments from Google almost definitely will impose substantial — in some cases, crippling — downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban,” Mehta wrote.
The feds argued at trial that such deals were essential to maintaining Google’s monopoly.
“Today’s treatment order agreed with the necessity to restore competition to the long-monopolized search market, and we at the moment are weighing our options and considering through whether the ordered relief goes far enough in serving that goal,” the DOJ said in a press release.
Google’s stock surged greater than 6% in after-hours trading following the ruling’s release around 4:30 p.m.
Apple stock also up nearly 4% in after-hours trading. Mehta’s ruling spares a $20 billion revenue stream for the struggling iPhone maker.
Matt Stoller, a outstanding antitrust advocate and Google critic, described Mehta’s decision as a “big whiff” and “weak.”
“Mehta just decided that the court can let Google keep its monopoly,” he wrote on X.
Other Big Tech watchdogs also slammed Mehta over the head-scratching ruling.
“You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank after which sentence him to writing a thanks note for the loot,” said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
“Similarly, you don’t find Google accountable for monopolization after which write a treatment that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless treatment to essentially the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a whole failure of his duty and should be appealed.”
Hegde called on the DOJ to appeal the choice.
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, said Mehta “was much more willing to let Google proceed bending the web and our economy to its will than enforcing the law.”
Mehta did write that the court could revisit his decision if the remedies aren’t effective.
“For now, Google might be permitted to pay distributors for default placement. There are strong reasons to not jolt the system and to permit market forces to do the work.”
The ruling caps a five-year legal fight that had the potential to upend the web and dismantle the core of Google’s business. It was considered essentially the most consequential Big Tech antitrust case in a long time.
Google had earlier vowed to appeal Mehta’s earlier ruling that it holds a monopoly.
Mehta’s ruling was largely according to proposals made by the Big Tech giant, which had argued that any forced selloff of Chrome or Android would break them and will even threaten US national security.
