In a significant antitrust ruling, a US federal judge has ordered Google to share its search data with competitors while allowing it to keep its Chrome browser, avoiding a break-up that the government had sought. This decision marks a pivotal moment in a long-running legal battle over Google’s dominance in online search.
US District Judge Amit Mehta issued the ruling after a five-year court case where Google was found to have maintained an illegal monopoly through exclusive contracts and anti-competitive practices. The judge concluded that while Google’s actions violated antitrust laws, a complete break-up was not necessary to restore competition.
Under the new order, Google must provide rivals like DuckDuckGo and Bing with access to its search results and certain user data. This data-sharing mandate aims to level the playing field by giving competitors the tools to improve their own search offerings and challenge Google’s market position.
However, the judge rejected the Department of Justice’s demand for Google to sell its Chrome browser, deeming it overly punitive and potentially disruptive to consumers who rely on integrated services. Google can continue to pay distributors for default placement on devices, but it is now barred from entering into exclusive agreements for products like Search, Chrome, and its AI assistant.
Google welcomed the ruling as a victory, emphasizing that the rise of artificial intelligence has already intensified competition in the search market. Shares of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, surged more than 8% following the announcement, reflecting investor optimism that the company avoided more severe penalties.
The decision also affects Google’s partners, such as Apple and Samsung, which have received billions of dollars in payments for pre-loading Google services. While these firms may now have more flexibility to promote alternatives, they could still benefit from renegotiated deals that maintain financial incentives.
Some competitors expressed disappointment, with DuckDuckGo’s CEO arguing that the measures do not go far enough to address Google’s monopolistic behavior and protect consumer choice. This criticism underscores broader concerns about the effectiveness of antitrust remedies in the fast-evolving tech industry.
Looking ahead, this ruling sets a precedent for future tech antitrust cases, including an upcoming trial focused on Google’s advertising practices. It highlights the challenges regulators face in balancing competition restoration with innovation preservation in an era dominated by AI and digital platforms.
