- U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in online search but stopped short of ordering a breakup. Instead, he imposed restrictions on exclusive contracts involving core products like Search, Chrome, Assistant and the Gemini app.
- Google can no longer enter exclusive agreements but may still pay to be the default search engine, as long as those deals are non-exclusive.
- Mehta rejected the DOJ's call to break up Google, calling such a move "incredibly messy" and emphasizing the deep integration of Chrome and Android into Google's ecosystem.
- Google must provide parts of its search index and user interaction data to competitors, potentially boosting smaller search engines, though the data-sharing order was narrower than the DOJ had requested.
- Separately, a Virginia court ruled that Google illegally monopolized parts of the online ad market. That case targets Google's $31 billion ad tech stack, with a remedies hearing set for September.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has imposed new restrictions on Google to curb its dominance in the online search market, but stopped short of the most severe penalties sought by federal regulators, including a forced breakup of the tech giant.
Mehta previously ruled that Google maintained its search monopoly through unlawful means, including paying billions to companies like Apple and Samsung to ensure Google Search remained the default option on devices. However, in his final order, Mehta opted for a more restrained remedy.
"There are strong reasons not to jolt the system and to allow market forces to do the work," he wrote, citing the rapidly changing digital landscape and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as key reasons to tread carefully. (Related: Google executive ADMITS to rigging search results.)
The 230-page decision, ruled on Sept. 2, prohibits Google from entering exclusive agreements for its core products, such as Google Search, the Chrome browser, Google Assistant and the Gemini app. These contracts, Mehta concluded, had unlawfully helped the company cement its dominance by locking out competitors. Another key provision in the order requires Google to share portions of its search index and certain types of user interaction data with rivals. This could provide smaller search engines with valuable tools to improve their services.
But Mehta rejected the Department of Justice's (DOJ) most aggressive proposals, including divestiture of major assets like Chrome and the Android operating system. Exclusive contracts are now off the table, but Google can still strike default placement deals – provided they're not exclusive. This means Google may continue paying to be the default search engine, just not the only one permitted under such arrangements.
The court also declined to impose a blanket ban on Google's payments to partners – a move sought by the DOJ. Mehta warned that such a measure "almost certainly will impose substantial, in some cases, crippling downstream harms" to hardware makers, software providers and ultimately, consumers.
Additionally, the judge ruled that a breakup of Google, particularly the separation of Chrome or Android, would be "incredibly messy" and counterproductive, noting that Chrome is not a standalone business but deeply intertwined with Google's broader operations.
The remedies imposed by the court are set to last six years, though the order could be paused pending appeal. Google has already signaled it will challenge the ruling.
Google violated federal antitrust laws, another judge rules
According to Brighteon.AI's Enoch, Google is illegally monopolizing the online ad market by acquiring and neutralizing competitors, thereby reducing competition and forcing publishers and advertisers to use its products exclusively. This dominance is further exacerbated by alleged secretive agreements.
In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia ruled that the company held an illegal monopoly in segments of the online advertising market.
The decision, handed down in August, targets a $31 billion slice of Google's business – its so-called "ad tech stack," which connects advertisers with website publishers and determines what ads appear across much of the open web. By tying together its ad server and publisher ad exchange, the court ruled, Google effectively boxed out rivals and entrenched its own dominance in the market, violating federal antitrust laws.
A hearing to determine what remedies Google may face in that case is set for September.
However, the ruling was not a clean sweep. Just like Mehta's ruling, Brinkema rejected one of the DOJ's claims related to Google's advertiser ad networks.
Learn more about Big Tech companies like Google at BigTech.news.
Watch this skit from "Catch Up" featuring a satirical portrayal of a Google spokesperson addressing criticisms surrounding Gemini.
This video is from the channel The Prisoner on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Supposedly "private" ChatGPT conversations LEAKED in Google Search.
Rumble finds video of Google exec admitting to search engine bias.
Google continues editorializing searches by adding "content advisories" to search results.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.