Google won a very important victory on Tuesday when a federal judge could catch the Tech veteran on his Chrome browser, rejecting the widespread punishment proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The government had asked US District Judge Amit Mehta that he found in the last August that the company had an illegal monopoly on online search.
Mehta eventually chose against a breakup, called it a “poor fit for the case” and suggested that DOJ had “overrech” in the opinion of its long 230-pies.
But he has still imposed some restrictions on Google, the company needs to prioritize its products and share some data and provide syndication services to the competitors.
What do you know about the decision here:
Google ruins favorable after hard year
The ruling ruling is largely favorable for Google after a particularly difficult year, during which the discovery giants lost two no -confidence cases and were struggling with the possibility of many partitions.
Mehta had an illegal monopoly on the discovery of Google, shortly after the verdict last August, led the company to test to stop another Doj case, alleging that the advertising technology was accused of monopolizing.
In April, US District Judge Leoni Binkema found that Google had illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in two separate markets in advertising tech space, with another setback for the Tech veteran empire.
DOJ has sought a breakup in this second case, as well as pushed to a forced division of two advertising products from Google. As a result, Tuesday’s decision will seem to be a welcome.
“Whatever could have happened yesterday, he had a good day,” said William Kosik, Professor of the Law of the University of George Washington and former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
However, he said, “Perhaps it is a day for beer instead of champagne – there are many rivers to cross them yet.”
But Google has some reservation about the decision
Google on Tuesday deferred the court’s verdict to choose against the breakup, but it is not completely satisfied with the ruling.
The company has vowed to appeal to find the underlying monopoly in the discovery case after completing the stage of treatment for a long time, and its plans appear unchanged.
“Today’s decision assumes how much the industry has changed through the arrival of AI, which is giving more ways to find information,” Li-On Mulholland said in a statement, which is giving more ways to find information. “
“It outlines what we are saying because the matter was filed in 2020: competition is intense and people can easily choose services that they want,” he continued. “That is why we are so strongly disagree with the initial decision of the court on liability in August 2024.”
Mehta’s decision and the treatment phase of the case focused heavily on artificial intelligence (AI), even though technology played a very little role in initial testing.
The DOJ argued that its comprehensive remedies, including the proposed breakup, were required, as Google’s dominance on the discovery could give it a leg in the AI race. Meanwhile, Google suggested that it outlines the growing competition that comes from the company emerging AI rivals, such as Openi, Zai and Dipsek.
The issue was also at the top for Mehta, who said in Tuesday’s judgment that the emergence of Generative AI “changed the syllabus of the case.”
Google raised the issue with measures ordered by a separate judge. While Google will still be allowed to place or preload firms to their search engine, browser or AI chatbot, Mehta stopped the company from entering exclusive agreements to prioritize these products.
He also needed a tech veteran to provide some search index and user interaction data and search syndication services to the contestants.
“We are concerned about how these requirements will affect our users and their privacy, and we are closely reviewing the decision,” Mulholand said.
DOJ claims that future options weigh
The Department of Justice is winning, for its share. Gayle Slater, head of DOJ’s Antitrest Division, called the decision “major win for American people”, even said that the agency was considering its next steps.
Slater wrote in a post on the Social Platform X, “When the court did not order every form of the United States relief, it ordered more important measures than Google,” Slater wrote in a post on social platform x.
“Don’t make any mistake: The relief has been given so far is a big win for the American people,” he said. “The department will be considering its options and weighing the next steps about getting additional relief.”
Like Google and Mehta, Slater also decided in the context of the AI race.
“The court gave the United States a leg in the global AI race, preventing Google from slowing down the AI innovation with the same anticomotive playbook that is used to freeze the search competition,” she said.
The ruling slatter arrives at one time for the division. Two top antitrust officers were expelled from the agency in late July amid internal disagreement when the merger between Hewlet Pacord Enterprise and Junipar Network.
Tensions have questioned the approach to the antitrust enforcement of the Trump administration, which has been a rare area of continuity with the biden administration, which is amidst increasing investigation of Big Tech firms.
Antitrust advocates ruling as ‘slap on wrist’
Not everyone is taking a decision. Advocates of the antitrust have argued Mehta’s ruling amount that “slap on the wrist” for the search giants.
Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets Institute, an anti-glory-monopoly think tank, argued that the judge’s measures “do nothing to correct these mistakes” and instead tell Google and other monopolists that “even the most important violations of the law will be found with a Thappad on the wrist.
Lynn said in a statement, “To find Google responsible for illegal monopolistic practices after legally making sound and morally courageous decisions, Judge Mehta clearly decided that it was more to implement the law.”
The American Economic Liberty Project called the DOJ and the states who sued it to appeal to the decision.
A statement said, “You do not consider someone guilty of robbing a bank and then punish him for writing a thanks not for the robbery.”
“Similarly, you do not find Google responsible for monopoly and then write a solution that allows it to protect its monopoly,” he continued. “This fakeless measure for the most well -organized case of the last quarter monopoly of the last quarter is a complete failure of their duty and should be appealed.”
Many Democratic MPs also suggested that Mehta’s ruling falls are low.
Democratic Reps. Pramila Jaipal (Wash.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Pat Ryan (NY) and Angie Craig (Min.), Who presided over the monopoly bustlers Cocks, argued that the decision allows the company to remain a monopoly, while Sen Elizabeth Waran (D-Mas) said “
Apple is on attractive search deal
Google is an amazing winner of the decision Apple. The iPhone-The manufacturer stands to take advantage of his multibilian-dollar deal with Google to make the search engine a default on its Safari web browser.
According to Bloomberg, the search giant paid $ 20 billion to Apple in 2022 alone in 2022. In 2020, Apple had 17.5 percent of the operating income in this revenue.
“This is a monster win for cupertino and a decision for Google to run a house that removes a huge overhang on stock that removes a huge overhang on stock,” said Daniel Evece, analyst of Wesbash Securities.
“While Google in theory is stopped from ‘exclusive deals’, it now gives groundwork to continue its deal for Apple and eventually doubles more AI related partnership with Google Gemini,” he said.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified earlier this year that the company was hoping to attack a deal with Apple to integrate Mithun AI on its equipment. Ewes suggested that Tuesday’s decision could “Green Light” a big partnership between two technical giants.
Apple did not respond to the remarks request.
