Google Avoids Breakup in Landmark Antitrust Ruling, Ordered to Share Search Data

Judge who ruled Google is a monopoly orders modest remedies

Ad giant won't be broken up, forced to offload Chrome or Android, thanks to AI Champagne will be flowing at Google HQ after US District Judge Amit Mehta decided to do very little to rein in the monopolistic web giant. In his 230-page ruling Mehta, who last August ruled that Google broke US competition law, decided the search behemoth will not have to divest its Chrome browser or Android operating systems, and can continue to pay billions to the likes of Apple to secure a prominent place for its search engine. "Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment," he ruled. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints." That decision will disappoint the US Department of Justice, because Mehta rejected the remedies it called for. The only government proposal Mehta accepted was that Google must share access to user-side data, albeit only to "qualified competitors." While this includes things like a search index and user-interaction data, it doesn't have to hand over specific advertising data. "If you think of ingredients as data, like users' search index, recipes are what they do with that data and how they use that data to make search results more relevant," Adam Kovacevich, CEO of technology non-profit Chamber of Progress and a former Googler, told The Register. "What you had is Google's rivals arguing that Google had to share its recipes' secret sauce. And the judge rejected that. He said: 'You only have to share their ingredient list, effectively their search and search index.'" The ruling also includes a requirement for Google to stop entering into exclusive deals that make the search giant the default search engine on mobile devices. It also requires Google to submit to six years of regulatory oversight by a technical committee that will monitor it to ensure it's not backsliding. You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot The DoJ is likely to appeal but had no comment at the time of publication. However, the ruling has infuriated antitrust groups. "You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the non-profit American Economic Liberties Project. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed." So what was it that caused the judge - who said barely a year ago that the ad slinger was an "overbearing illegal monopoly" - to do so little to change the status quo? Mehta found that AI has changed the competitive landscape Google faces since the DoJ first brought its case in October 2020. "The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case," he wrote. "No witness at the liability trial testified that GenAI products posed a near-term threat to general search engines (GSE). "The very first witness at the remedies hearing, by contrast, placed GenAI front and center as a nascent competitive threat. These remedies proceedings thus have been as much about promoting competition among GSEs as ensuring that Google's dominance in search does not carry over into the GenAI space." Mehta argued that over the past year he has sought out multiple sources of testimony to discuss AI and the issues that surround it, and is therefore cognizant of the issues it creates. But the original case was about Google's existing advertising practices. The judge claims he addressed that matter. Google clearly agrees with Mehta when it comes to AI changing the antitrust situation. In a statement, it welcomed the ruling and said it will continue to dispute his initial finding that it is an illegal monopoly. "Today's decision recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information," Google said in a canned statement. "This underlines what we've been saying since this case was filed in 2020: Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want." Google and Mehta do have a point. The Chamber of Progress's Kovacevich - who attended many of the hearings - pointed out that when the case was heard generative AI was very new, and the AI search market was still in its infancy. In the nearly five years since, much has changed. "Anybody who has been paying attention to technology in the last two years would say that generative AI does pose a competitive challenge to traditional search engines," he opined. Anybody who has been paying attention to technology in the last two years would say that generative AI does pose a competitive challenge to traditional search engines "So I think what the judge was grappling with was this reality that it changes the game, and it changed the game since Google was found liable in the first phase of the trial. So I thought it was great that he was acknowledging that, and spent so many pages [of the ruling] just talking about how much that poses a competitive challenge to traditional search engines." Google's stock price shot up by eight percent in after-hours trading and Apple's jumped 2.5 percent, suggesting investors like this ruling. That sentiment may stem from the fact that during the trial it emerged that in 2021 Google paid more than $26 billion to other companies to make sure that it was the default search engine on their platforms. Apple raked in $18-20 billion in 2020 alone, around a quarter of its profit in that year [PDF]. Google wouldn't spend that sort of money unless it paid off, so its shareholders may be pleased that a big source of revenue remains viable. Mozilla is another beneficiary of Google's largesse. While the amount it gets is trivial in comparison to Cook & Co, thought to be around $400 million, the foundation has very few other sources of revenue. Earlier this year Mozilla's CFO warned that cutting the Google subsidy would "potentially start a downward spiral of usage as people defected from our browser, which ... could at the end of the day put Firefox out of business," the judge notes. At the time of publication, Apple and Mozilla had no comment. Mehta noted that the loss of such payments would be "crippling," and "downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban." So what will change for consumers? In effect, almost nothing. Google will carry on as before, and the case will drag on for years. "Users will be in much the same position as before," Mitch Stoltz, litigation director for the EFF told The Register. "The lack of any restructuring of Google, or even a ban on the massive revenue sharing payments to Apple and others for default search placement that were at the heart of the government's case, mean that Google's incentives won't change, and the data-sharing remedies may be undermined." ®

Google's Antitrust Loss Now Feels a Lot Like Winning

Something close to the best-case scenario emerged for Google on Tuesday when a federal judge outlined its punishments for running an illegal search monopoly. The company will not be forced to sell its Chrome browser or Android operating system. There will be no hampering of its artificial-intelligence efforts. It can even still shovel billions of dollars a year to Apple Inc. to help attract search traffic from iPhone users if it wants. The ruling confirmed the fears of those who felt these antitrust proceedings, groundbreaking as they were, simply came too late. Judge Amit Mehta's remedies are an attempt to level a playing field in a game that ended long ago. They force the Alphabet Inc. unit to refrain from certain exclusivity deals and requirements for preferential app placement among its device partners. Google must also make available limited search data to competitors. Sure, if competitors can use this newly available search data to their advantage, it might mean a single-digit percentage hit to Google's market share, but the status quo will remain pretty much just that.

US judge orders Google to share search data with competitors

Sept 2 (Reuters) - Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google must share data with competitors to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting prosecutors' bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser. Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the U.S. Department of Justice could enable Google's rivals to reverse-engineer its technology. Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta's ruling. The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and its home country, the U.S., where Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence. Google said the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified and would give away its technology to competitors. In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets. The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. And Google is scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The Justice Department's two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump's first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab, Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab and Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab. Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Boards, Policy & Regulation * Regulatory Oversight Jody Godoy Thomson Reuters Jody Godoy reports on tech policy and antitrust enforcement, including how regulators are responding to the rise of AI. Reach her at [email protected]

Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust ruling

Sept 2 (Reuters) - Google won't have to sell its Chrome browser, a judge in Washington said on Tuesday, handing a rare win to Big Tech in its battle with U.S. antitrust enforcers, but ordering Google to share data with rivals to open up competition in online search. Google parent Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab shares were up 7.2% in extended trading on Tuesday as investors cheered the judge's ruling, which also allows Google to keep making lucrative payments to Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab that antitrust enforcers said froze out search rivals. Apple shares rose 3%. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta also ruled Google could keep its Android operating system, which together with Chrome help drive Google's market-dominating online advertising business. The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and the U.S., where antitrust regulators and lawmakers have long questioned Big Tech's market domination. Mehta ruled last year that Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. But the judge approached the job of imposing remedies on Google with "humility," he wrote, pointing to competition created by artificial intelligence companies since the case began. "Here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge's forte," Mehta wrote. While sharing data with competitors will strengthen rivals to Google's advertising business, not having to sell off Chrome or Android removes a major concern for investors who view them as key pieces to Google's overall business. Google faces a major threat from increasingly popular AI tools including OpenAI's popular ChatGPT chatbot, which are already eroding Google's dominance. If allowed to access the data Google is required to share, AI companies could bolster their development of chatbots and, in some cases, AI search engines and web browsers. "The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing," Mehta wrote, saying AI companies are already better placed to compete with Google than any search engine developer has been in decades. Deepak Mathivanan, an analyst for Cantor Fitzgerald, said the data-sharing requirements pose a competitive risk to Google but not right away. "It will take a longer period of time for consumers to also embrace these new experiences," he said. U.S. antitrust enforcers are considering their next steps, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater said on X. Google said in a blog post it was worried data sharing "will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely." Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling. The case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. "Judge Mehta is aware that the Supreme Court is the likely final destination for the case, and he has chosen remedies that stand a good chance of acceptance by the Court," said William Kovacic, director of the competition law center at George Washington University. BILLIONS IN PAYMENTS The ruling was also a relief for Apple and other device and Web browser makers, whom Mehta said can continue to receive advertising revenue-sharing payments from Google for searches on their devices. Google pays Apple $20 billion annually, Morgan Stanley analysts said last year. Banning the payments is even less necessary amid the rise of AI, Mehta wrote, where products such as OpenAI's ChatGPT "pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet search." The ruling also made it easier for device makers and others who set Google search as a default to load apps created by Google's rivals, by barring Google from entering exclusive contracts. Google itself had proposed loosening those agreements, and its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics (005930.KS), opens new tab and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings. BIG TECH CRACKDOWN In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets. The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. And Google is scheduled to go to trial later this month to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The Justice Department's two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump's first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab, Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab and Apple. Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York, Mike Scarcella in Washington and Kenrick Cai in San Francisco; Editing by Chris Sanders, Edmund Klamann, Matthew Lewis and Sonali Paul Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Boards, Policy & Regulation * Regulatory Oversight Jody Godoy Thomson Reuters Jody Godoy reports on tech policy and antitrust enforcement, including how regulators are responding to the rise of AI. Reach her at [email protected]

Google avoids breakup in search monopoly case, but judge orders other changes in landmark ruling

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a major makeover of Google's search engine in a crackdown aimed at curbing the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly, but rebuffed the U.S. government's request to break up the company. The 226-page decision made by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., will likely ripple across the technological landscape at a time when the industry is being reshaped by artificial intelligence breakthroughs -- including conversational "answer engines" as companies like ChatGPT and Perplexity try to upend Google's long-held position as the internet's main gateway. Mehta is trying to rein in Google by placing new restraints on some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services. But the judge stopped short of banning the multi-billion dollar deals that Google has been making for years to lock in its search engine as the default on smartphones, personal computers and other devices. Those deals, involving payments of more than $26 billion annually, were a focal point of a nearly five-year-old antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department. The judge also rejected the U.S. Justice Department's effort to force Google to sell its popular Chrome browser, concluding the request was a bridge too far. But Mehta is ordering Google to give its current and would-be rivals access to some of its search engine's secret sauce -- the data stockpiled from trillions of queries that helped to continually improve the quality of its search results.

Google avoids break-up but must share data with rivals

Shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company, jumped by more than 8% after the ruling emerged. Companies smartphone-makers such as Apple, Samsung and Motorola will also benefit. Prior to the ruling, Google paid such firms billions of dollars to exclusively pre-load or promote the tech company's products. It was revealed at trial that Google paid more than $26bn for such deals with Apple, Mozilla and others in 2021. Now, Google will not be allowed to enter into any exclusive contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant or the Gemini app. It means phone manufacturers will be free to pre-load or promote other search engines, browsers or AI assistants alongside Google's. Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, said the ruling was "good news for big tech". "Apple also gets a nice win because the ruling forces Google to renegotiate the search deal annually," he said on X. Judge Mehta's ruling "doesn't seem to be as draconian as the market was expecting," said Melissa Otto, head of research at S&P Global Visible Alpha. With Google's search operation expected to generate close to $200bn this year, and tens of billions of that expected to go to distribution partners it is a win-win for the major corporate players involved in the case, Ms Otto said. Google is yet to comment but has previously said it plans to file an appeal. That would mean it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling. The decision is not the end of the tech giant's court battles. Later this month, Google is scheduled to go to trial to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology.

Judge orders Google to share search data as part of antitrust ruling -- but Google gets to keep Chrome

Just over a year after a federal judge declared that Google is a monopoly in a landmark antitrust case, penalties have been handed down, though Google has been spared the breakup that the government had been seeking. There was some expectation that the ruling handed down today (September 2) would force Google to divest various parts of its business including selling Chrome or separating Android from Google. That's not what happened, though Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did impose some penalties. As part of the ruling, Google must share some of its search data with companies that are "qualified competitors." Specifically, Google has to share search index and user interaction data, though it doesn't have to share advertising data. Mehta also called for the creation of a technological oversight committee that is supposed to monitor Google's compliance with the ruling for the next six years. Additionally, Mehta restricted Google's ability to enter into exclusive contracts for distributing its search engine. The company is still able to pay for distribution of its search and AI products. This means that Google could still pay $20 billion a year to Apple for making Google Search the provider on Safari, as long as the deal isn't exclusive. The Department of Justice argued that Google should be forced to sell its Chrome web browser as a way to remedy the company's power as a monopoly. "Notwithstanding this power, courts must approach the task of crafting remedies with a healthy dose of humility," said Judge Mehta in the decision. "This court has done so." Mehta noted in his ruling that AI had upended the tech world since the lawsuit launched in 2020 and that factored in his decision. Gabriel Weinberg, founder and CEO of browser maker DuckDuckGo, said that the ruling did not go far enough to force the changes needed to Google's behavior. "Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search," Weinberg said in a statement received by Tom's Guide. "As a result, consumers will continue to suffer. We believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field." This is not necessarily the end of the lawsuit, as Google could appeal the ruling. For now, the landmark case is one of the first major attempts to tackle technology monopolies since US v Microsoft in 1998. The Department of Justice filed the antitrust lawsuit against Google in 2020 arguing that the exclusive agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung was monopolistic and kept out competitors. Mehta ruled that Google was a monopoly in 2024 with the case entering the remedies phase this past April. During this phase, Google agreed to halt the exclusive contracts but fought back on every other point including the forced sale of Chrome and sharing data. Google argued that doing so would harm the company, reduce innovation and basically act as a free handout to competitors. However, as of this writing, even with the rise of OpenAI and its improved AI-based search, Google has nearly 90% of the search engine market according to GS Statcounter.

Google won't have to sell Chrome in antitrust win

Why it matters: Not having to sell Chrome is a major win for Google in the landmark antitrust case the Justice Department brought against the company back in 2020. * However, it's losing its exclusivity contracts, which will likely be a major loss of revenue for other companies and may make Chrome less ubiquitous. Driving the news: Federal District Judge Amit Mehta issued the ruling after finding that Google violated antitrust law to obtain a monopoly in the online search market last year. * Google can still pay partners for placement and preloading of Google apps, despite exclusivity being banned. What they're saying: "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints," the ruling states. The big picture: The judge had the opportunity to transform the tech ecosystem, forcing a rebalancing of market power in web search at a time when AI is fundamentally changing how people look things up online. That didn't happen. * Spinning off Chrome would have had major ramifications for Google's business both in search and AI, and interested buyers were lining up. * No more exclusivity impacts Google's contracts with Android, Apple and Samsung, which have helped keep Chrome the top choice browser for many. The other side: Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Context: Last August, Mehta ruled that Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly status. * The case was originally filed in President Trump's first administration. What's next: Google's planned appeal could lead to the case reaching the Supreme Court.

Google can keep Chrome and Android, judge rules in antitrust case

Google avoids being forced to break up as part of a huge antitrust case brought against it by the U.S. government. Credit: Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Why? A judge has ruled that the company will not be forced to sell Chrome or Android, two suggestions that were being pushed by the U.S. Department of Justice as a result of the search giant losing a major antitrust case last August brought against it by the government. On Tuesday, Sept. 2, District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington rejected the DOJ's push to break up Google. Instead, Judge Mehta ruled that Google can no longer take part in exclusive deals regarding its search engine, such as the one that saw Google pay billions of dollars to Apple in order to maintain its search dominance on iOS devices. In addition, the judge ruled that Google must also share some of its search data with competitors. The judge's decision marks a judgment in just one of Google's antitrust cases, which spanned from President Donald Trump's first administration into the preceding Biden administration and now into Trump's second term. Google is currently involved in a separate antitrust case regarding digital advertising, which the company also lost in April. Regardless of the judge's remedy, the search giant says it will appeal the decision, as Judge Mehta claimed that the company was acting like a monopoly and controlled 90 percent of the search market thanks to exclusive deals like the one the judge banned with Apple. Nevertheless, Judge Mehta's refusal to break up Google must be welcomed news to both Google and other Silicon Valley companies undergoing antitrust lawsuits. However, some, like OpenAI and Perplexity, may not be thrilled with the judge's decision, as these AI companies were eager to acquire the popular Chrome web browser if Google had been forced to sell it. That definitely won't be happening now.

Google avoids breakup in monopoly case

Google has avoided being broken up in monopoly case, but a US judge has ruled that it must help rivals improve their search engine results by sharing some of its data from trillions of user requests. District judge Amit Mehta also banned Google from entering into exclusive agreements with device makers that prevent them pre-installing rival services. However, the judge stopped short of making the tech giant offload its Chrome browser or Android operating system. Shares in Google's parent company, Alphabet, surged more than 8pc in after-hours trading as investors cheered the judge's ruling. While sharing data with competitors will strengthen Google's rivals to its market-dominating advertising business, not having to sell off Chrome or Android removes a major concern for investors who view them as key pieces to Google's overall business. The ruling was also a relief for Apple and other device and web browser makers, who district judge Amit Mehta said can continue to receive advertising revenue-sharing payments from Google for searches on their devices. Google pays Apple $20bn (£14.9bn) a year, Morgan Stanley analysts said last year. Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling. Its chief executive Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the US Department of Justice could enable Google's rivals to reverse-engineer its technology. The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and its home country, the US, where Judge Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence. In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets. The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. Google is also scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the US Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The Justice Department's two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the US on Big Tech firms, which began during Donald Trump's first term as US president and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple.

Google Keeps Chrome as Judge Rejects Breakup: Here's Why It Matters - Decrypt

Analysts say the remedies are less drastic but still leave Google's core moat intact. A U.S. federal judge declined to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser in a landmark antitrust case on Tuesday, instead imposing remedies aimed at loosening the tech giant's grip on online search and advertising. Handed down by Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Tuesday, the ruling allows Google to retain its browser while prohibiting it from entering exclusive contracts for its product suite across Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and its Gemini AI app. "For years, Google accounted for approximately 90 percent of all search queries in the U.S., and Google used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising," the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in a statement. Google entered into "a series of exclusionary agreements" that "locked up" how ordinary users accessed and searched online, with the company requiring itself to be the "preset default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers," the DOJ wrote. The tech company used its stature to buy "preferential treatment" for its search engine and created a "self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization," the department added. Judge Mehta's order specifically requires Google to share portions of its search index and user-interaction data with qualified competitors and to offer syndication of search and text ads, according to multiple reports, though a copy of the order has not surfaced at the time of writing. Decrypt has reached out to Google for comment. The case began in 2020 and was joined by nearly every U.S. state and territory. In 2024, the court ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized search in violation of the Sherman Act, which deters companies from monopolizing markets or conspiring to restrict competition. The ruling comes as Google builds its own layer-1 blockchain and faces rising competition from AI-enabled browsers developed by companies such as Perplexity and OpenAI. Analysts note that while the remedies impose new obligations, Google's stature in the tech industry may prove more resilient to dislodgement. While Google's Chrome browser retains "its distribution advantage and ecosystem integration," data sharing could "enable competitors to build better targeting features," Ryan Yoon, senior analyst at Tiger Research, told Decrypt. Still, Google's "core moat" in search and vertical integration "remains intact" to an extent where "meaningful market share shifts seem unlikely," Yoon added. Google's broader moves into crypto and AI suggest it is positioning for regulated, enterprise-focused infrastructure where "compliance matters more than decentralization," while betting on "superior data integration" against its AI browser competitors, even if those "could erode their search monopoly," Yoon said. Tuesday's ruling shows "an enormous shift that finally has us leaning favorably towards market "unblocking" rather than interventionist asset splitting," Andrew Rossow, a public affairs attorney and CEO of AR Media Consulting, told Decrypt. The case also offers "a more realistic litigation and negotiation strategy," Rossow said, citing similar ongoing anti-trust considerations from big companies like Meta and Amazon. Such a strategy points to how the law could offer "less drastic remedies" if "large tech platform providers" can be "reformed through contract and data access regulation," he added. "Our judiciary must adapt to technology's unpredictability, rather than attempt to dictate the next market winner," Rossow opined.

U.S. judge orders Google to share search data with competitors

Alphabet's Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting prosecutors' bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system. Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the U.S. Department of Justice could enable Google's rivals to reverse-engineer its technology. Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta also barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements that would prohibit device makers from preinstalling rival products on new devices. Google had argued that loosening its agreements with device makers, browser developers and mobile network operators was the only appropriate remedy in the case. Its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings, according to documents shown at trial in April. The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and its home country, the U.S., where Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence. Google said the proposals would go far beyond what is legally justified and would give away its technology to competitors. In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets. The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. And Google is scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The Justice Department's two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump's first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple.

Google is not required to sell Chrome, federal judge rules in antitrust case

A US judge on Tuesday rejected a government bid to force Google to sell its Chrome browser but ordered sweeping changes to restore competition in online search. The ruling follows Judge Amit Mehta's August 2024 finding that Google maintained illegal search monopolies through billion-dollar exclusive agreements. A US judge on Tuesday rejected the government's demand that Google sell its Chrome web browser as part of a major antitrust case but imposed sweeping requirements to restore competition in online search. The landmark ruling came after Judge Amit Mehta found in August 2024 that Google illegally maintained monopolies in online search through exclusive distribution agreements worth billions of dollars annually. Judge Mehta's decision in the Google case represents one of the most significant rulings against corporate monopoly practices in two decades, and could have fundamentally reshaped the tech giant's future. The US government pushed for Chrome's divestment, contending that the browser serves as a crucial gateway to internet activity and facilitates a third of all Google web searches. But in his ruling, Mehta warned that a Chrome divestiture "would be incredibly messy and highly risky" and said US government lawyers had overreached in making that request. Read moreGoogle holds illegal monopolies in online ad tech, US judge rules Offensive against Big Tech The case primarily focused on Google's expensive distribution agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other smartphone manufacturers that established Google as the default search engine on iPhones and other devices. Under this arrangement, Google pays Apple tens of billions of dollars annually for prime placement on the iPhone. In his decision last year, Judge Mehta concluded that Google's default status on the iPhone allowed the company to evolve into an internet powerhouse, insulated from competitive threats. But Mehta on Tuesday said an outright ban of these deals was off the table, insisting that such a ban could have too profound an effect on other businesses. "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers," the ruling said. Instead, under his order, Google must make available to "qualified competitors" search index data and user interaction information that rivals can use to improve their services. The company must also offer search result syndication services to competitors for up to five years. The ruling also specifically addresses the emerging threat from generative artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT, extending restrictions to prevent Google from using exclusive deals to dominate the AI space as it did with traditional search. Read moreGoogle keeps growing, as federal judges decide whether to break it up A technical committee will oversee implementation of the remedies, which take effect 60 days after the final judgment is entered. The parties have until September 10 to submit a revised final judgment consistent with the court's ruling. Google faces another legal case, awaiting a federal court decision in Virginia regarding its web display advertising technology business. A separate judge ruled earlier this year that Google's ad tech operations also constitute an illegal monopoly that stifles competition. These cases are part of a broader government and bipartisan offensive against Big Tech. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against major technology companies. The original search engine case against Google, along with a separate case targeting Meta, originated during the first Trump administration in 2020. The Biden administration maintained these prosecutions while launching additional cases against Apple and Amazon, as well as the second case challenging Google.

Google not required to sell Chrome, judge rules

Washington (AFP) - A US judge on Tuesday rejected the government's demand that Google sell its Chrome web browser as part of a major antitrust case but imposed sweeping requirements to restore competition in online search. The landmark ruling came after Judge Amit Mehta found in August 2024 that Google illegally maintained monopolies in online search through exclusive distribution agreements worth billions of dollars annually. Judge Mehta's decision in the Google case represents one of the most significant rulings against corporate monopoly practices in two decades, and could have fundamentally reshaped the tech giant's future. The US government pushed for Chrome's divestment, contending that the browser serves as a crucial gateway to internet activity and facilitates a third of all Google web searches. But in his ruling, Mehta warned that a Chrome divestiture "would be incredibly messy and highly risky" and said US government lawyers had overreached in making that request. Offensive against Big Tech The case primarily focused on Google's expensive distribution agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other smartphone manufacturers that established Google as the default search engine on iPhones and other devices. Under this arrangement, Google pays Apple tens of billions of dollars annually for prime placement on the iPhone. In his decision last year, Judge Mehta concluded that Google's default status on the iPhone allowed the company to evolve into an internet powerhouse, insulated from competitive threats. But Mehta on Tuesday said an outright ban of these deals was off the table, insisting that such a ban could have too profound an effect on other businesses. "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers," the ruling said. Instead, under his order, Google must make available to "qualified competitors" search index data and user interaction information that rivals can use to improve their services. The company must also offer search result syndication services to competitors for up to five years. The ruling also specifically addresses the emerging threat from generative artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT, extending restrictions to prevent Google from using exclusive deals to dominate the AI space as it did with traditional search. A technical committee will oversee implementation of the remedies, which take effect 60 days after the final judgment is entered. The parties have until September 10 to submit a revised final judgment consistent with the court's ruling. Google faces another legal case, awaiting a federal court decision in Virginia regarding its web display advertising technology business. A separate judge ruled earlier this year that Google's ad tech operations also constitute an illegal monopoly that stifles competition. These cases are part of a broader government and bipartisan offensive against Big Tech. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against major technology companies. The original search engine case against Google, along with a separate case targeting Meta, originated during the first Trump administration in 2020. The Biden administration maintained these prosecutions while launching additional cases against Apple and Amazon, as well as the second case challenging Google.

Google gets to keep Chrome and Android, but faces lesser penalties in major antitrust ruling - SiliconANGLE

Google gets to keep Chrome and Android, but faces lesser penalties in major antitrust ruling A U.S. court has decided that Google LLC won't be forced to sell off its Chrome browser or divest its Android operating system after being found guilty of operating an illegal online search monopoly in a landmark antitrust case last year. The ruling is seen as a significant win for Google, which avoided the most severe potential penalty that could be imposed on it during the trial's remedies phase. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said that although Google will be allowed to keep Chrome and Android, it will have to make some data available to qualified competitors to help promote better competition in the online search industry. It's also going to be barred from entering into, or maintaining exclusive contracts designed to promote services such as Chrome, Google Search, Google Assistant and the Gemini artificial intelligence application. Google's exclusive agreements ensure broad access to its services and generate a significant amount of revenue, but the company proposed dropping them as a potential remedy, which was accepted by Judge Mehta in part. The antitrust trial put Google's core search business under the microscope at a time when it's facing an unprecedented challenge in the face of AI chatbots. Google is also fighting to protect its online advertising business after being found guilty of running an illegal monopoly in a separate trial earlier this year. "Google will not be required to Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment," Mehta's ruling read. The decision was closely watched by the industry, as several other technology giants are in the midst of antitrust litigation battles with the U.S. government. Mehta noted that the rapid rise of generative AI applications as a significant threat to traditional search engines has "changed the course of this case", and said that he needs to ensure Google's dominance doesn't carry over into that industry. "Unlike the typical case where the court's job is to resolve a dispute based on historic facts, here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future," Mehta wrote. "Not exactly a judge's forte." Last fall, Google was found guilty of violating U.S. antitrust laws with its search business practices. Mehta found that Google "is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly." After the guilty verdict, the trial entered the so-called "remedies" phase, where Google disagreed with the Justice Department's proposed solutions, arguing that they would make it more difficult for consumers to access their preferred search engines. It also claimed the remedies would hurt economic growth and American tech leadership. Google's vice president and general manager of Chrome Parisa Tabriz told the court that any decision to sell off Chrome would likely make the browser "insecure and obsolete," although several companies, including OpenAI, expressed an interest in buying it. The bigger problem for Judge Mehta was Google's exclusive, multibillion-dollar contracts with smartphone makers like Apple Inc., which ensure that Google's search engine is the default option on millions of new devices, including the latest iPhone models. The judge said these agreements give Google an unfair advantage because they rely on consumer habit rather than choice. He noted that as of 2020, more than 95% of all smartphone search queries made by U.S. citizens went through Google Search. By preventing Google from entering into these exclusive contracts, Mehta said the court would go some way towards leveling the playing field. As such, the company will be prohibited from making any agreements that require hardware makers to preload Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant or Gemini on their devices in order to access the popular Google Play app store. Google is still allowed to pay partners to distribute its services, including Google Search, but the deals cannot be exclusive. Google maintains an extremely lucrative deal with Apple, paying the iPhone maker billions of dollars to be the default search option on its devices. As such, the practical impact of the ruling remains to be seen, but it's likely that many smartphone makers will continue to preload Google's applications and services anyway, due to their vast popularity. However, they will no longer be the default options. "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial - in some cases, crippling - downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban," the filing read. Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities said the ruling is a victory for Google and Apple. "While in theory Google is barred from exclusive deals for search, this now lays the groundwork for Apple to continue its deal and ultimately likely double down on more AI-related partnerships with Google Gemini down the road," he wrote in a research note. NetChoice, a lobby group that advocates for free expression and free enterprise on the internet, welcomed the less severe penalties handed down by Judge Mehta, saying the ruling recognizes that the world is entering a new era where humility is essential for free markets to work. "Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the tech industry globally, and President Trump has set out an ambitious agenda to usher in a new Golden Age for American innovation and ensure that U.S. companies continue to dominate international markets," it said in a statement. "Dismantling Google, as the DOJ sought, would have threatened the American tech industry at a time when our leadership is needed now more than ever. The Court took a more balanced approach." Google's biggest punishment appears to be Judge Mehta's ruling that it will have to make certain types of search index and user interaction data available to its competitors, though it will be allowed to retain data on search-related advertising. Google's search index is basically an enormous database of the pages and information on the internet. When someone types a query into Google's search engine, it scans this database to return links to webpages. The data, which includes things such as user's clicks and search queries, could help competitors build more viable search products that better compete with Google, the ruling said. However, Google's competitors will still have to pay to access the data. According to the ruling, the data must be licensed on "ordinary commercial terms that are consistent with Google's current syndication services."

Google avoids breakup in search monopoly case, but judge orders other changes in landmark ruling

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a major makeover of Google's search engine in a crackdown aimed at curbing the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly, but rebuffed the U.S. government's request to break up the company. The 226-page decision made by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., will likely ripple across the technological landscape at a time when the industry is being reshaped by artificial intelligence breakthroughs -- including conversational "answer engines" as companies like ChatGPT and Perplexity try to upend Google's long-held position as the internet's main gateway. Mehta is trying to rein in Google by placing new restraints on some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services. But the judge stopped short of banning the multi-billion dollar deals that Google has been making for years to lock in its search engine as the default on smartphones, personal computers and other devices. Those deals, involving payments of more than $26 billion annually, were a focal point of a nearly five-year-old antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department. The judge also rejected the U.S. Justice Department's effort to force Google to sell its popular Chrome browser, concluding the request was a bridge too far. But Mehta is ordering Google to give its current and would-be rivals access to some of its search engine's secret sauce -- the data stockpiled from trillions of queries that helped to continually improve the quality of its search results.

Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust ruling - The Economic Times

A US judge ruled Google can keep Chrome and Android but must share search data with rivals to encourage fair competition. The decision highlights AI's growing threat to Google's dominance. It's part of a broader US antitrust push against Big Tech, aiming to reduce monopolistic practices and increase consumer choice.Google won't have to sell its Chrome browser, a judge in Washington said on Tuesday, handing a rare win to Big Tech in its battle with US antitrust enforcers, but ordering Google to share data with rivals to open up competition in online search. Google parent Alphabet's shares were up 7.2% in extended trading on Tuesday as investors cheered the judge's ruling, which also allows Google to keep making lucrative payments to Apple that antitrust enforcers said froze out search rivals. Apple shares rose 3%. US District Judge Amit Mehta also ruled Google could keep its Android operating system, which together with Chrome help drive Google's market-dominating online advertising business. The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and the US, where antitrust regulators and lawmakers have long questioned Big Tech's market domination. Mehta ruled last year that Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. But the judge approached the job of imposing remedies on Google with "humility," he wrote, pointing to competition created by artificial intelligence companies since the case began. "Here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge's forte," Mehta wrote. While sharing data with competitors will strengthen rivals to Google's advertising business, not having to sell off Chrome or Android removes a major concern for investors who view them as key pieces to Google's overall business. Google faces a major threat from increasingly popular AI tools including OpenAI's popular ChatGPT chatbot, which are already eroding Google's dominance. If allowed to access the data Google is required to share, AI companies could bolster their development of chatbots and, in some cases, AI search engines and web browsers. "The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing," Mehta wrote, saying AI companies are already better placed to compete with Google than any search engine developer has been in decades. Deepak Mathivanan, an analyst for Cantor Fitzgerald, said the data-sharing requirements pose a competitive risk to Google but not right away. "It will take a longer period of time for consumers to also embrace these new experiences," he said. US antitrust enforcers are considering their next steps, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater said on X. Google said in a blog post it was worried data sharing "will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely." Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling. The case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. "Judge Mehta is aware that the Supreme Court is the likely final destination for the case, and he has chosen remedies that stand a good chance of acceptance by the Court," said William Kovacic, director of the competition law centre at George Washington University. Billions in payments The ruling was also a relief for Apple and other device and Web browser makers, whom Mehta said can continue to receive advertising revenue-sharing payments from Google for searches on their devices. Google pays Apple $20 billion annually, Morgan Stanley analysts said last year. Banning the payments is even less necessary amid the rise of AI, Mehta wrote, where products such as OpenAI's ChatGPT "pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet search." The ruling also made it easier for device makers and others who set Google search as a default to load apps created by Google's rivals, by barring Google from entering exclusive contracts. Google itself had proposed loosening those agreements, and its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings. Big Tech crackdown In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets. The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. And Google is scheduled to go to trial later this month to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The Justice Department's two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the US on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump's first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple.

Google can keep Chrome and keep paying to be default search, federal court rules

Alphabet's Google will have to share some of its search data with competitors, but will not have to sell its popular Chrome web browser, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in the Justice Department's landmark antitrust case against the search engine operator. The ruling allows Google to avoid one of the most severe remedy requests from the U.S. government after the court found the company had an illegal monopoly in the search market. Judge Amit Mehta did bar Google from entering into exclusive contracts for internet search. The finding follows Mehta's ruling last year that Google illegally monopolized the markets for online search and search advertisements. Mehta held a three-week hearing in April to determine a fix. The order is one of the most monumental court decisions affecting the technology sector in more than a quarter century, and could offer a blueprint for other judges who may end up weighing similar choices in cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple. Shares of Alphabet surged as much as 8.7% in extended trading following the release of the judge's ruling. Apple shares climbed as much as 4.3%. In another win for Google, the judge didn't bar the company from making payments to third parties including Apple for default browser placement in browsers or on mobile devices. "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial - in some cases, crippling - downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban," the judge wrote. Apple favors the Google search engine by giving it the best placement in Safari search bar on computer and mobile devices. Users can opt to switch to Microsoft's Bing, DuckDuckGo and other options. For Apple, the ruling maintains the status quo and will allow the iPhone-maker to continue receiving payments from Google, which currently amount to more than $20 billion a year. The iPhone-maker gets a much needed reprieve for its services segment, which is already under fire globally from regulators trying to break up its $100 billion per year App Store business. The judge's ruling indicates that the default arrangement can continue -- with minor adjustments. These include that Apple will need to better promote alternative search engines and make changes to its default search engine settings annually. The judge also ruled that users must be able to set a different default search engine for privacy mode, an ask that Apple already addressed several months ago. Under the ruling, which has a duration of six years, Google is required to share limited search data with competitors that could include Microsoft and Duck Duck Go, as well as new AI companies like OpenAI and Perplexity, in order to help them build out competing search engines. Google and the Justice Department didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Microsoft, DuckDuckGo, OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. The case against Google was initially filed in the final months of the first Trump administration. After a 10-week trial in 2023 shepherded by then-U.S. President Joe Biden's Justice Department, Mehta sided with the government in August 2024. In his decision, Mehta said that Google illegally dominated the search market by paying more than $26 billion to Apple and other companies to make its search engine the default option on smartphones and web browsers. "Google's distribution agreements foreclose a substantial portion of the general search services market and impair rivals' opportunities to compete," Mehta wrote in his 286-page liability ruling. By monopolizing distribution on phones and browsers, Google has been able to consistently raise the prices of online advertising without consequences, he said. To address the judge's findings, the Justice Department proposed that Google be forced to sell its popular Chrome web browser and share some of the data it collects to create its search results. It also asked Mehta to ban Google from paying for search engine defaults -- a bar that would also apply to Google's AI products, including Gemini, which the government says were aided by the company's illegal monopoly in search. At the hearing this spring, Google argued that the government's proposals were too extreme. The company said that the remedies would hurt America's consumers, economy and position as a world leader in technology. To argue its case, Google called on Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai; the head of Google Search, Liz Reid, and a vice-president of product at DeepMind, Eli Collins, to testify in court. Judge Mehta said in his ruling that the government "overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints." The trial also saw a slew of high-profile AI executives take the stand, including OpenAI's Nick Turley, Perplexity's Dmitry Shevelenko and DuckDuckGo's Gabriel Weinberg. The Justice Department called those witnesses to describe what they called harmful business practices at Google, and how the proposed remedies would break up the monopoly. Google is facing another possible breakup in a second Justice Department case challenging its monopoly over technology used to buy, sell and display advertising around the web. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia ruled in favor of the government earlier this year and will hold a hearing in September to determine whether to force the company to sell tools used by websites selling ad space.

Judge orders search shakeup in U.S. Google monopoly case, but keeps hands off Chrome and default deals

SAN FRANCISCO - A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday ordered a shake-up of Google's search engine in an attempt to curb the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly while rebuffing the U.S. government's attempt to break up the company and impose other restraints. The 226-page decision made by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., will likely ripple across the technological landscape at a time when the industry is being reshaped by breakthroughs in artificial intelligence -- including conversational "answer engines" as companies like ChatGPT and Perplexity try to upend Google's long-held position as the internet's main gateway. The innovations and competition being unleashed by generative artificial intelligence, or "GenAI," have reshaped the judge's approach to remedies in the nearly five-year-old antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department during President Donald Trump's first administration and carried onward by President Joe Biden. "Unlike the typical case where the court's job is to resolve a dispute based on historic facts, here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge's forte," Mehta wrote. The judge is trying to rein in Google by prohibiting some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services. The handcuffs will prevent Google from negotiating contracts that give its search engine, Gemini AI app, Play Store for Android and virtual assistant an exclusive position on smartphone, personal computers and other devices. But Mehta stopped short of banning the multi-billion dollar deals that Google has been making for years to lock in its search engine as the default on smartphones, personal computers and other devices. Those deals, involving payments of more than $26 billion annually, were one of the main issues that prompted the judge to conclude Google's search engine was an illegal monopoly, but he decided banning them in the future would do more harm than good. The judge also rejected the U.S. Justice Department's effort to force Google to sell its popular Chrome browser, concluding it was an unwarranted step that "would be incredibly messy and highly risky." Partially because he is allowing the default deals to continue, Mehta is ordering Google to give its current and would-be rivals access to some of its search engine's secret sauce -- the data stockpiled from trillions of queries that it used to help improve the quality of its search results. That is a measure that Google had also fiercely opposed, contending it was unfair and would raise privacy and security risk for the billions of people who have posed questions to its search engine -- sometimes delving into sensitive issues. The Justice Department's antitrust chief, Gail Slater, hailed the decision as a "major win for the American people," even though the agency didn't get everything it sought. "We are now weighing our options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough," Slater wrote in a post. In its own post, Google framed Mehta's ruling as a vindication of its long-held position that the case never should have been brought. The decision "recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information," wrote Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs. "This underlines what we've been saying since this case was filed in 2020: Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want." The Mountain View, California, company has already vowed to appeal the judge's monopoly findings issued 13 months ago that led to Tuesday's ruling. "You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project. Investors seemed to interpret the ruling as a relatively light slap on the wrist for Google, as the stock price of its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., surged nearly 3% in extended trading. Investors seemed to interpret the ruling as a relatively light slap on the wrist for Google, as the stock price of its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., surged nearly 3% in extended trading. Allowing the default search deals to continue is more than just a victory for Google. It's also a win for Apple, which receives more than $20 billion annually from Google, and other recipients of the payments. In hearings earlier this year, Apple warned the judge that banning the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own innovative research. The Cupertino, California, company also cautioned that the ban could have the unintended consequence of making Google even more powerful by pocketing the money it had been spending on deals while most consumers will still end up flocking to Google's search engine anyway. Others, such as the owners of the Firefox search engine, asserted that losing the Google contracts would threaten their future survival by depriving them of essential revenue. Mehta refrained from ordering a sale of Chrome because he decided there wasn't adequate proof the browser served as an essential ingredient in Google's search monopoly, making a divestiture "a poor fit for this case." Chrome would have been a hot commodity had the judge forced Google to put it on the auction block. Perplexity submitted an unsolicited $34.5 billion offer to buy Chrome last month. And during court testimony earlier this year, a ChatGPT executive left no doubt that service's owner, OpenAI, would be interested in be interested in buying Chrome, too. But the judge decided forcing Google to open up parts of its search data to rivals such as DuckDuckGo, Bing, and others will offer he best and fairest way to foster more compelling competition. In doing so, Mehta still narrowed the scope of the Justice Department's request and will limit the access to Google's search index and query histories.

US judge orders Google to share search data with competitors

(Reuters) -Alphabet's Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting prosecutors' bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system. Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the U.S. Department of Justice could enable Google's rivals to reverse-engineer its technology. Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta also barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements that would prohibit device makers from preinstalling rival products on new devices. Google had argued that loosening its agreements with device makers, browser developers and mobile network operators was the only appropriate remedy in the case. Its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings, according to documents shown at trial in April. The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and its home country, the U.S., where Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence. Google said the proposals would go far beyond what is legally justified and would give away its technology to competitors. In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets. The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. And Google is scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The Justice Department's two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump's first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple. (Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York; Editing by Edmund Klamann)

Google dodges Chrome breakup in antitrust case, but judge demands these changes

Mehta has blocked Google from signing exclusive search contracts and ordered the company to share limited search data with competitors. Google has avoided one of the biggest penalties in its landmark antitrust case with the US Justice Department. A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the company will not have to sell its Chrome web browser, but it must make changes to how it runs its search business. The case, led by Judge Amit Mehta, is one of the most important antitrust rulings in the tech sector in more than 25 years. Mehta found last year that Google illegally controlled the online search and AI markets. In his new ruling, Mehta blocked Google from signing exclusive search contracts and ordered the company to share limited search data with competitors, reports Bloomberg. That means rivals like Microsoft, DuckDuckGo, OpenAI, and Perplexity could get access to the data they need to build stronger search engines. Also read: Google debunks reports about Gmail security alarm, assures strong protections However, the judge has not banned Google from paying third parties such as Apple to feature its search engine in default settings. The judge wrote, "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban." For Apple, this is a relief. The iPhone maker receives over $20 billion a year from Google for giving its search engine the main spot in Safari. While these payments can continue, Apple must now better promote alternative search engines and adjust its default search engine settings annually. Users must also have the option to set a different search engine for private browsing. Also read: Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold price drops by Rs 35,000 on Flipkart: Check deal details here Google, which argued that the government's remedies were too extreme, called top executives, including CEO Sundar Pichai, to defend its case. Judge Mehta agreed that forcing the sale of Chrome was an overreach, saying that the government "overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints." Also read: Oppo Find X8 Pro price drops by over Rs 14,000 on Amazon: How to grab this deal Meanwhile, Google is also facing another antitrust case over its advertising business, where regulators are considering whether to force the company to sell key ad tech tools.