A judge decided on Tuesday that Google would not be required to sell its Chrome browser or the Android operating system, sparing the company from the harshest penalties requested by U.S. authorities. The same judge had previously ruled nearly a year ago that Google maintained an unlawful monopoly through its flagship search engine.
Critics of Google's stronghold over internet search and related industries expressed frustration, arguing that the judge failed to impose substantial reforms in a sector dominated by a single entity. Meanwhile, industry representatives and investors welcomed the decision. Shares of Alphabet, Google's parent company, increased by 9% since Tuesday afternoon.
Judge Amit Mehta did mandate that Google share search data with competitors and prohibited the company from establishing or maintaining exclusive agreements concerning the distribution of its products, including Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. However, the ruling does not stop Google from compensating distributors like Apple and Mozilla, which use Google as the default search engine in their browsers. A separate hearing later this year will address Google's control over online advertising systems.
In a statement released Tuesday, the Department of Justice praised the decision, calling Mehta’s measures "significant" and noting that the ruling acknowledges the need for changes to encourage competition in a market that has remained stagnant for years.
Free-market advocates, however, argue the decision falls short.
Critics say the ruling favors Google
Mehta’s decision sparked immediate criticism from longtime observers of the antitrust case, who had pushed for stronger action against Google’s dominance. Numerous advocacy groups had previously called for the company to be dismantled, insisting that drastic measures were necessary to revive competition.
Opponents of the ruling claim it will reinforce Google’s control rather than open the search market, setting a precedent that major corporations need not fear serious repercussions for antitrust violations.
Barry Lynn, head of the Open Markets Institute, stated, “For years, Google has used its enormous influence across the digital landscape to stifle rivals, slow progress, and deny people the freedom to access information without interference from one of history’s most powerful companies. Judge Mehta’s order requiring Google to share data and end exclusive agreements does little to address these harms. Instead, it signals to Google and other monopolies that even serious legal breaches will result in minimal punishment.”
Some organizations and experts also questioned Mehta’s approach in assessing harm in the case.
Read next
UK Society of Authors unveils logo to mark books authored by humans, not AI
The Society of Authors (SoA) has introduced a programme aimed at marking books that are created by human writers amid a market swamped with AI‑produced titles.
It is the first initiative of its type from a UK trade body, permitting writers to enrol their titles and obtain a “Human
Study finds AI helps hackers uncover anonymous social media profiles.
AI has made it significantly simpler for bad actors to pinpoint anonymous social‑media profiles, a recent study warns.
In most trial conditions, large language models (LLMs) – the technology underlying tools such as ChatGPT – correctly linked anonymous online users to their real identities on other services, using the material they
UK experts say ChatGPT fuels increase in reports of “satanic” organized ritual abuse.
UK specialists say that ChatGPT is prompting an increase in reports of organised ritual abuse, as victims of so‑called “satanic” sexual violence turn to the AI system for therapeutic help.
Police contend that organised ritual abuse and “witchcraft, spirit possession and spiritual abuse” (WSPRA) targeting children are largely hidden