Google has received a significant reprieve in a highly scrutinized antitrust case. A US court has determined that the tech firm will not be required to divest its Chrome browser, despite being found guilty of unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in online search. The ruling, issued by Judge Amit Mehta, spares Google from the most severe penalties while instituting restrictions designed to regulate its influence in a rapidly evolving industry.
On Tuesday, Judge Mehta dismissed federal prosecutors’ request to strip Google of its essential search business and to prohibit the company from the browser market for five years, stating that the prosecutors had “overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets.” This ruling ensures that Chrome, regarded as one of Google’s most valuable products, continues to be under the company’s control. Although Google has avoided a breakup, it will now face limitations on some of its traditional business practices. The court has prohibited the company from engaging in or maintaining exclusive distribution agreements for Chrome, Google Assistant, and its Gemini app.
Nonetheless, Mehta permitted Google to continue compensating device manufacturers for product placements, warning that an outright ban could lead to “downstream harms.” Following the ruling, Wall Street responded promptly, with Alphabet, Google’s parent company, experiencing a surge in its stock during after-hours trading, indicating that investors perceived the decision as considerably more lenient than anticipated. The verdict protects both Google’s core search operations and the wider advertising framework that supports a significant portion of its income. However, not all stakeholders were pleased with the outcome.
Consumer advocates and regulatory groups criticized the ruling as ineffective, with the American Economic Liberties Project labeling it a “complete failure.” Its executive director, Nidhi Hegde, expressed strong disapproval: “You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot. Similarly, you don’t find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly.” During the trial, it was revealed that Google invested billions to maintain its search engine as the default option on Apple and Samsung devices, a strategy that enabled the company to secure nearly 90 percent of the US search market.
While Google contended that its dominance stemmed from providing a superior product, Judge Mehta previously stated: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” In his recent ruling, however, Mehta acknowledged the rapidly changing landscape with the emergence of AI-driven search engines and chatbots. He emphasized that remedies must ensure Google does not simply transfer its dominance into these new AI technologies. Looking forward, Google’s regulatory challenges are not yet resolved. The company will face another legal confrontation later this year regarding its control over online advertising technology. Together, these decisions are poised to influence not only Google’s trajectory but also the overall dynamics of competition in the digital marketplace.