A federal court handed the Justice Department a major win in its years-long antitrust battle with Google on Tuesday, finding that the tech giant unlawfully protected its dominance in internet search. However, the ruling did not go so far as to break up the company’s Chrome browser or search division.
Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court determined that Google engaged in anticompetitive practices to shut out competition and safeguard its leading position. He ordered Google to end its exclusive arrangements that guarantee its search engine is the default on phones and browsers and directed the company to provide competitors with access to valuable search data.
The Justice Department hailed the decision as a landmark, but some consumer advocates expressed frustration that the court did not impose the harshest possible remedy: forcing Google to divest parts of its business.
In its response, the Justice Department called the case “the most significant antitrust victory against a technology company in more than two decades.”
“Today’s decision ensures that American consumers will finally see the benefits of competition in online search,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who leads the Antitrust Division. “Google will no longer be able to lock up distribution channels and suffocate rivals.”
Abigail Slater, another assistant attorney general who oversaw the case, said the measures were designed to reshape the digital marketplace. “This is about more than one company — it’s about ensuring that the digital economy works for everyone,” she explained in a post on X.
“Google abused its gatekeeper role for years. Now, by forcing open the default settings market and requiring data sharing, we are putting choice and fairness back into the hands of users and developers. We will be vigilant in monitoring compliance.”
The 276-page order lays out several obligations for Google, including: ending its exclusive agreements with Apple, Mozilla, and Android phone makers; giving users a clear way to select other search engines; sharing anonymized search data with competitors; and operating under the supervision of an independent monitor who will regularly update the court.
Judge Mehta wrote that these steps are “narrowly tailored to restore competitive conditions in search without unduly penalizing innovation.”
He rejected demands from state officials and consumer advocates to split off Chrome from Google, arguing such a move was “not justified by the record” and would cause “unnecessary disruption” to the technology industry.
Google said it was reviewing the order but insisted its products have always been chosen voluntarily. “People choose Google because it is helpful, not because they are forced to,” said Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs. “We remain committed to building products that provide value and innovation.”
The company confirmed it would comply but suggested it may appeal elements of the ruling.
Some consumer organizations and lawmakers said they were disappointed the judgment stopped short of breaking up the business. The New York Post described it as a “slap on the wrist,” noting the company avoided the forced sale of Chrome.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, emphasized in its press release that the remedies will “directly benefit consumers, advertisers, and emerging competitors.”
Legal experts noted that the court adopted a restrained approach, addressing anti-competitive conduct without dismantling one of the most widely used tech platforms. “This is a major legal defeat for Google, but it is not the corporate breakup some were expecting,” said Eleanor Fox, professor emeritus at New York University School of Law. “The court has chosen conduct remedies over structural ones.”
Filed in 2020, the case was the largest antitrust challenge to a technology company since the government took on Microsoft in the late 1990s.
Prosecutors argued that Google paid billions to companies like Apple to keep its search engine as the default, blocking rivals such as Bing and DuckDuckGo from gaining traction.
Evidence presented during the trial included internal Google communications describing default placements as “must-have” to maintain market control.
Mehta concluded that these agreements “substantially foreclosed” competition, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The ruling could set a precedent for other cases targeting major tech firms like Amazon and Meta. It highlights a growing focus by regulators on issues like default settings, access to data, and control over distribution channels rather than traditional pricing concerns.
Slater called the decision “a down payment on restoring competition in digital markets” and promised more aggressive action from the department. “Make no mistake, this is a warning shot to dominant platforms across the tech sector,” she said. “The message is clear: the era of unchecked gatekeeping is over.”
Google has six months to comply with the new requirements, with an independent monitor to be installed soon afterward.
Although appeals are possible, antitrust scholars believe the remedies will likely remain in place due to the judge’s extensive findings.
For everyday users, the biggest change may come when setting up new devices, where they will be prompted to choose from a wider range of search engines. Competitors will also gain more data to improve their services.
Whether those changes will significantly alter market dynamics is uncertain. Google currently commands over 85 percent of search activity in the United States, according to the court’s findings.
{Matzav.com}
