Google Escapes Major Breakup in Landmark Antitrust Ruling, Required to Share Search Data

Google gets off easy in the most significant monopoly case since Microsoft trial

The search giant won't have to divest itself of Chrome, Android, or its ad data. In a landmark decision, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court ruled Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by stifling competition. As Mehta wrote in his decision, "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly." Now, Mehta has announced what that means in his long-awaited decision against Google. While it comes with important restrictions, it's well short of granting the Department of Justice's request that the tech giant be forced to sell off core assets such as its Chrome browser or Android operating system, or break up its digital ad business. Also: Google is killing the Android phone feature that once made them popular Mehta concluded that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the online search and search advertising markets through exclusive contracts and other anticompetitive tactics. However, he decided that the government's push for divestiture -- calling for Google to sell off Chrome or Android -- was "overreaching" and not appropriately justified, declaring such a remedy "incredibly messy" and unsupported by direct evidence. He added that in the case of Chrome, "The court's task is to discern between conduct that maintains a monopoly through anticompetitive acts as distinct from "growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident." Instead, Mehta has barred Google from striking or maintaining exclusive deals with phone and browser makers that guarantee its search engine as the default option. This upends long-standing contracts with Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla. Google may continue to pay for preferred placement, but only under non-exclusive agreements. So, Mozilla, which depends on Google paying it to be Firefox's default search engine, will stay in business. Additionally, the judge ordered Google to share some search data, specifically portions of user interaction and search index information, with rival competitors. Google will not, however, be required to share its advertising data. What this will look like remains an open question. To enforce these changes, Mehta outlined the formation of an independent technology oversight committee, charged with policing Google's compliance for six years. The company must also submit to ongoing federal scrutiny to make sure it doesn't recreate exclusionary arrangements using new technology, such as generative AI products. Also: Waze vs. Google Maps: I tested two of the best navigation apps, and there's a clear winner This ruling marks the most significant monopoly case since the Microsoft trial nearly 30 years ago. Google's search advertising business, which generated over $198 billion last year, remains under pressure from ongoing antitrust scrutiny even as AI-driven search alternatives, such as Perplexity, grow. In the meantime, the market is overjoyed at what it sees as a Google win. Google stock jumped 8% as the news quickly spread. Nevertheless, Google is widely expected to appeal the decision, and the judge's orders will be paused pending appeal. This will take years.

Google Gets to Keep Chrome, Must Share Some Search Index Data With Rivals

Chrome isn't going anywhere, and neither are Google's payments to developers of competing browsers to keep its search engine as their default. The ruling that US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta handed down Tuesday in the Google search-antitrust case gave the plaintiffs -- the Department of Justice, joined by 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two US territories -- much less than they'd asked for last year after the judge found Google had created an illegal monopoly in search. In his 230-page opinion for the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Mehta wrote that he considered remedies for Google's illegal conduct "with a healthy dose of humility." He also emphasized his awareness of how AI search engines and chatbots could already be gnawing away at Google's lock on the search market, which Statcounter data for August put at 93% in mobile and 76% on desktops in the US. "The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing," Mehta wrote of generative-AI firms. "These companies already are in a better position, both financially and technologically, to compete with Google than any traditional search company has been in decades (except perhaps Microsoft)." That led Mehta to reject the notion of a forced sale of Chrome, which had already drawn multi-billion-dollar bids from Perplexity and other firms, as "incredibly messy and highly risky." He also declined the plaintiff's request to compel a divestiture of Android in five years unless Google could prove that its ownership of that mobile platform was not hurting search competition, writing that this remedy "does not fit the wrong." And while the trial revealed how much Google values keeping itself as the search default in Apple's Safari, Mehta only approved a ban on exclusivity for Google search, Google Assistant, or its Gemini AI in deals like those. (Google pays Apple in the neighborhood of $20 billion a year, plus 36% of search-ad revenue generated in Safari.) He suggested that this could allow browser developers to set a different search site as the default for private browsing. Mehta added that banning these search-default deals would let Google keep billions of dollars a year, which it could presumably divert into search and AI improvements to widen its competitive moat, and deprive independent browser developers like Mozilla and Opera of revenue they have come to rely on. (Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers wrote on LinkedIn that she found it "encouraging to see the Court recognize the risk of unintended consequences when trying to improve search competition -- and not just for browsers like Firefox, but for the future of the open web.") Giving Rivals Some Search Index Crumbs The remedies that Mehta did approve mostly address the ability of competing search engines to match Google's comprehensive view of the web. One will require Google to provide access to search-index data at "marginal cost" to competitors to help them create indexes of their own with the same scale as Google's. The judge emphasized that they're only getting a map of where to crawl: "Competitors will have to build the crawlers, crawl the web pages, extract the web page information, and process the data to create a competitive search index." A second remedy will offer Google alternatives a temporary boost while they build out their new indexes: syndicated Google search results, which Google will have to provide on "ordinary commercial terms" for five years. Mehta strongly suggested that these remedies will make more of a difference if AI platforms take advantage of them, citing such expert testimony as this assessment of generative-AI platforms from Apple services chief Eddy Cue: "To me, the only thing that's keeping them from potentially doing that is, again, growing their search index." The judge, however, turned down remedies that would have given more power to web publishers in their dealings with Google by banning exclusive deals between sites and Google for their content and by allowing sites to limit Google's crawling of their sites. The first could have ensured Google could not shut out competing AI developers with deals like its AI-training exclusive with Reddit; the second would have empowered sites to allow traditional search indexing but veto the use of their data for AI Overview results. Mehta cited a lack of evidence of harm to justify either condition (many news sites have reported falling Google search traffic), and these issues are a step removed from the search-competition subject of this case. While Mehta rejected most of the proposed remedies about Google's search-ads business, he did accept a requirement that it "publicly disclose material changes" to its ads auctions. This targets a pattern of stealthy price hikes revealed during the case. "Google recognized that its price increases would be hard to explain to advertisers," he wrote. "So, it simply did not disclose them." In addition, the judge declined two proposed remedies intended to raise people's awareness of their search choices: a Google-financed public-education campaign and "choice screens" that would require users to pick a search engine. Google agreed to include one in Android for EU users, but it's made almost no difference in Google's market share. 'A Home Run for the Status Quo' Google responded to the ruling in a post Tuesday by Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president for regulatory affairs, that repeated earlier disagreements with the idea that it should be held liable for anticompetitive conduct when "people can easily choose the services they want." Google continues to appeal that finding. "Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals," the statement said. "We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely." The Justice Department, meanwhile, posted a statement Tuesday that said the ruling "recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade." Abigail Slater, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, said in the statement that the DOJ is also reviewing the decision: "We will continue to review the opinion to consider the Department's options and next steps regarding seeking additional relief." Market-research firm MoffettNathanson offered a much pithier assessment of what it called a "slap-on-the-wrist ruling" in a note sent late Tuesday. "This outcome is a home run for the status quo, and the status quo has been very favorable to both Google and Apple," the note read. "We're not suggesting that the future of search or devices is now free from competitive threat, but this decision allows the transition ahead to unfold on their terms rather than through a disruptive and damaging judgment."

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]

What comes next in Google's antitrust case over search?

Sept 2, September 2 - A judge ruled on Tuesday that Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google must share search data with competitors but rejected prosecutors' bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system. Here is what has happened so far in the case and what comes next: Oct. 20, 2020 - The Justice Department during President Donald Trump's first administration sues Google alleging that it illegally monopolized the online search and related advertising markets. This was the first time in a generation that the U.S. government accused a Big Tech corporation of an illegal monopoly. Prosecutors continue pursuing the case under President Joe Biden's administration. Sept. 12, 2023 - Google defends its practices at a trial before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, saying it had won its market share by providing a high-quality service. Nov. 16, 2023 - The trial's evidence phase concludes, after Google CEO Sundar Pichai took the stand and acknowledged the importance of making its search engine the default on phones and other devices. May 2-3, 2024 - Mehta hears closing arguments in the case, pressing Google on how rival search engines could compete, and whether online advertisers would substitute social media or other ads for search advertising. Aug. 5, 2024 - The judge finds Google violated U.S. antitrust law, saying that "Google has no true competitor." Nov. 20, 2024 - Prosecutors propose a sweeping set of remedies they said would work in tandem to open up competition in the markets for online search and related advertising. The 10-year reformation plan includes requiring Google to sell off its Chrome browser, cease paying device makers like Apple to make it the default search engine on new devices, share data with rivals, and end its investments in artificial intelligence companies. Dec. 20, 2024 - Google proposes a much narrower remedy that would loosen its agreements with Apple and others, calling the government's proposal a drastic attempt to intervene in the search market. March 7, 2025 - The Justice Department, once again led by Trump appointees, backs most of the November proposals but drops a bid to make Google sell off AI investments. April 21, 2025 - Mehta kicks off a 14-day trial on the proposals where prosecutors say Google needs strong measures imposed on it to prevent its online search dominance from extending to AI. At trial, OpenAI says that proposed data-sharing remedies could help it improve ChatGPT, Google executive Sundar Pichai says data sharing would let competitors copy Google's product, and Google's stock takes a hit after an Apple executive testifies that the iPhone maker plans to add AI-driven search options to its Safari browser. May 30, 2025 - After a break for both sides to file court papers, Mehta holds closing arguments in the case where he suggests he is considering less aggressive measures than the 10-year regime proposed by antitrust enforcers, citing the rapid pace of developments in the AI sector. June 3, 2025 - Google says it has hired Donald Verrilli Jr., the U.S. solicitor general during the Barack Obama administration, to handle its appeal in the case. Sept 2, 2025 - Mehta rules that Google will not have to sell its popular Chrome browser, in a victory for the search giant. The company, though, will have to share data with competitors to open up competition in online search, he said, and also barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements that would prohibit device makers from preinstalling rival products on new devices. Late 2025 - Google has said it plans to appeal - it will have 30 days from the final judgment in the case to begin the process. The appeal could stretch into 2027 or later. Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York Editing by Matthew Lewis and Chizu Nomiyama Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Boards, Policy & Regulation * Regulatory Oversight * Antitrust 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]

Alphabet shares jump as US court ruling eases antitrust concerns

Sept 3 (Reuters) - Google-parent Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab surged 6% in premarket trading on Wednesday after a U.S. federal judge spared the company from a forced breakup in an antitrust case, marking a pivotal moment for the tech giant whose dominance in search and mobile ecosystems has long drawn scrutiny. The ruling by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. Google can continue making payments to partners such as Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab to feature its search engine, a practice central to its dominance in online search. Shares of Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab rose 2.6% premarket. The outcome is "a home run for the status quo," MoffettNathanson analysts said, adding that "being found guilty of monopolistic behavior yet facing such a benign remedy is particularly favorable" for the tech firm. The ruling, they said, preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones. The decision lifts a key regulatory overhang that had weighed on Alphabet's valuation, with analysts noting that the company had traded at a discount to peers amid fears of a forced divestiture. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7% year-to-date, outperforming Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab but trailing Meta (META.O), opens new tab and Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Reporting by Rashika Singh; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Alphabet shares surge after court spares it from a breakup

Sept 3 (Reuters) - Alphabet shares jumped more than 6% in premarket trading on Wednesday after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up the Google parent, clearing a major regulatory overhang and putting it on track to add more than $160 billion to its market value. The ruling on Tuesday by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. It, however, allowed Google to continue to make payments to partners such as Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab to feature its search engine. Shares of the iPhone maker were up 3.7% before the bell. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7% this year, slightly outperforming the S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab, but trailing Big Tech peers Meta (META.O), opens new tab and Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab. The ruling preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones, analysts said. "For Apple, this news seems to save it $20 billion+ flowing through the Services segment. In short, it is just what the doctor ordered since Services is all that matters for the multiple," said Ben Reitzes, analyst at Melius Research. Apple was in early talks to use Gemini AI to underpin a revamped Siri voice assistant on its devices, Bloomberg News reported last month. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Alphabet's shares trade at 20.3 times earnings expectations, a discount to other so-called Magnificent Seven stocks and the broader S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab. CHALLENGE TO SEARCH DOMINANCE The Justice Department said the remedies will pry open the market for search services and protect GenAI competition. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup on Tuesday, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Google must share certain search index and interaction data with competitors, the ruling said, a move that can help AI rivals build and improve competing chatbots and search tools. Even so, Google's scale and data lead remain formidable, analysts said. "The order requires data sharing that is limited in scope, in a way we conclude may only marginally boost competition by generative AI services," said Nick Rodelli, legal analyst at CFRA Research's Washington Analysis. Reporting by Akash Sriram, Rashika Singh and Akriti Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala and Sriraj Kalluvila Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Artificial Intelligence * Regulatory Oversight Akash Sriram Thomson Reuters Akash reports on technology companies in the United States, electric vehicle companies, and the space industry. His reporting usually appears in the Autos & Transportation and Technology sections. He has a postgraduate degree in Conflict, Development, and Security from the University of Leeds. Akash's interests include music, football (soccer), and Formula 1.

Alphabet shares surge after court rules against a breakup

Sept 3 (Reuters) - Alphabet shares jumped more than 6% on Wednesday after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up the Google parent, clearing a major regulatory overhang and putting the stock on track to add more than $170  billion to its market value. The ruling on Tuesday by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. Google was also allowed to keep making payments to partners such as Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab to feature its search engine. Shares of the iPhone maker were up 3%. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7% this year, slightly outperforming the S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab, but trailing Big Tech peers Meta (META.O), opens new tab and Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab. The ruling preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones, analysts said. "The payments from Google were a huge revenue generator for the tech giant and the fact these can continue will be a relief in what has been a turbulent year," said Ben Barringer, head of technology research at Quilter Cheviot, an investor in Apple and Alphabet. Apple was in early talks to use Gemini AI to underpin a revamped Siri voice assistant on its devices, Bloomberg News reported last month. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Alphabet's shares trade at 20.3 times earnings expectations, a discount to other so-called Magnificent Seven stocks and the broader S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab. CHALLENGE TO SEARCH DOMINANCE The Justice Department said the remedies will pry open the market for search services and protect GenAI competition. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup on Tuesday, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Google must share certain search index and interaction data with competitors, the ruling said, a move that can help AI rivals build and improve competing chatbots and search tools. Even so, Google's scale and data lead remain formidable, analysts said. "The order requires data sharing that is limited in scope, in a way we conclude may only marginally boost competition by generative AI services," said Nick Rodelli, legal analyst at CFRA Research's Washington Analysis. Reporting by Akash Sriram, Rashika Singh and Akriti Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala and Sriraj Kalluvila Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Artificial Intelligence * Regulatory Oversight Akash Sriram Thomson Reuters Akash reports on technology companies in the United States, electric vehicle companies, and the space industry. His reporting usually appears in the Autos & Transportation and Technology sections. He has a postgraduate degree in Conflict, Development, and Security from the University of Leeds. Akash's interests include music, football (soccer), and Formula 1.

Alphabet shares surge after dodging antitrust breakup bullet

Sept 3 (Reuters) - Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab shares jumped about 8% on Wednesday after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up the Google parent, clearing a major regulatory overhang and putting the tech major on track to add roughly $206  billion to its market value. The ruling on Tuesday by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. Google was also allowed to keep making payments to partners such as Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab to feature its search engine. Shares of the iPhone maker were up 3.2%. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Alphabet shares, which hit a record intraday high of $230.86, are up nearly 11.7% this year through last close, slightly outperforming the S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab, but trailing Big Tech peers Meta (META.O), opens new tab and Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab. The ruling preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones, analysts said. "The payments from Google were a huge revenue generator for the tech giant and the fact these can continue will be a relief in what has been a turbulent year," said Ben Barringer, head of technology research at Quilter Cheviot, an investor in Apple and Alphabet. Apple was in early talks to use Gemini AI to underpin a revamped Siri voice assistant on its devices, Bloomberg News reported last month. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Alphabet's shares trade at 20.3 times earnings expectations, a discount to other so-called Magnificent Seven stocks and the broader S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab. CHALLENGE TO SEARCH DOMINANCE The Justice Department said the remedies will pry open the market for search services and protect GenAI competition. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup on Tuesday, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Google must share certain search index and interaction data with competitors, the ruling said, a move that can help AI rivals build and improve competing chatbots and search tools. Even so, Google's scale and data lead remain formidable, analysts said. "The order requires data sharing that is limited in scope, in a way we conclude may only marginally boost competition by generative AI services," said Nick Rodelli, legal analyst at CFRA Research's Washington Analysis. Reporting by Akash Sriram, Rashika Singh and Akriti Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala and Sriraj Kalluvila Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Artificial Intelligence * Regulatory Oversight Akash Sriram Thomson Reuters Akash reports on technology companies in the United States, electric vehicle companies, and the space industry. His reporting usually appears in the Autos & Transportation and Technology sections. He has a postgraduate degree in Conflict, Development, and Security from the University of Leeds. Akash's interests include music, football (soccer), and Formula 1.

Google dodges a bullet

Landmark antitrust cases in the technology industry have had a way of marking the transition from one era of computing to the next. They have also accelerated the eclipse of incumbent tech champions and the emergence of new ones, clearing the way for the rise of Microsoft after IBM's mainframe monopoly came under attack, and for Google after Microsoft was in turn hauled into court. The US case against Google, which reached a critical point with the publication of sanctions against the company on Tuesday, also comes as the tech industry is on the cusp of a new era. This time, however, the incumbent looks to have come out surprisingly unscathed. The rise of chatbots such as ChatGPT might threaten the power of Google's monopoly, but the search company looks to have been left well-placed to become one of the leaders -- and possibly the dominant player -- in the emerging AI market. It's no surprise that the ruling has already infuriated Google's enemies. US regulators were asleep at the wheel for years as Google built and exploited its search monopoly. When it finally came, last year's judgment was damning: the company was found to have squeezed out rivals by buying up default positions for its search engine on browsers and mobile handsets, giving it exclusive access to billions of people, including on the iPhone. Unusually for a case like this, though, the sanctions were set with more than one eye on future markets that are still in the process of forming, leading to a less punitive outcome than might have been expected. Justifying his approach, Judge Amit Mehta pointed out that, when the case began at the tail-end of the first Trump administration, investors were leery of investing in any company that might try to challenge Google. Now, by contrast, an "astounding" amount of money has poured into generative AI, posing a direct threat to Google's core market for the first time. As a result, Google will not be forced to sell off its Chrome browser -- a digital distribution platform reaching an estimated 3.5bn people that AI start-ups OpenAI and Perplexity had both hoped to buy. Nor will it be barred from paying other tech companies to make its search engine the default in their products, meaning that it can still use its vast wealth to make sure it gets prime positioning. Apple, which receives $20bn a year for Google, is unlikely to throw open the iPhone to other bidders who would struggle to pay anything like as much. Instead, Google will be forced to reveal some of its search engine data, a finely crafted ruling that is meant to remove some of the obstacles to anyone hoping to create a competitor. But would-be rivals would still face an uphill climb if they wanted to take an entrenched Google on in its core market. The judge has also tried to prevent Google repeating its anti-competitive behaviour in the AI market, banning it from reaching the same kind of exclusive deals to distribute its AI services that it used in search. In this, there is an echo of the way the US case against Microsoft was settled a quarter of a century ago, with the software company subjected to detailed technical rules. Recognising that some of its old practices would no longer pass regulatory muster, Google has already recast its search distribution deals to end the exclusivity, and to drop the type of "bundling" that involved forcing smartphone companies to promote its search engine if they wanted other Google services. Ironically, rather than signalling new restraints on Google in the AI market, the ruling will, if anything, give it the green light to turn up the heat on its competitors. While the case was going on, Google moved cautiously, refraining from paying to distribute its Gemini AI app in the way that it does for search. It is likely to feel freer now to pour its billions into ensuring its AI is put squarely in front of billions -- starting, perhaps, with the iPhone. And while judge Mehta is right that venture capital has flooded into rivals such as OpenAI, giving them the wherewithal to fight back, investment booms built on speculative venture money are often short lived. At some point those investors will require a return. Google, enjoying a gusher of cash from a search business that has escaped harsher sanctions, is well placed to weather any AI winters that hit the financial markets. The US case against Microsoft didn't prevent the software company returning to the top of the tech industry, though it took years to rebound. Largely by staying focused on matching the new AI competition, Google has so far managed to avoid Microsoft's fate. This week's antitrust ruling has just made that job easier.

Google ruling shows how tech can outpace antitrust enforcement

Sept 4 (Reuters) - The rapid pace of development in the world of tech, particularly in AI, spurred a judge's cautious approach to curbing Google's online search monopoly, revealing a hurdle for U.S. antitrust enforcers' efforts to win their other cases against Big Tech. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last year that Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google holds an illegal monopoly, saying its dominance in online search "has gone unchallenged for well over a decade." But he declined on Tuesday to impose stringent requirements that the government had called for, saying the rise of AI companies in the past two years has already created competitive pressure. He noted that tens of millions of people use generative AI programs like ChatGPT, Perplexity and Claude in nearly the same way they look for information they previously found on Google. "Innovation is a hare while antitrust law is a tortoise," said Adam Kovacevich, head of the Big Tech-funded industry group Chamber of Progress. Courtney Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly group, said the ruling sends the wrong signal to the AI sector. "It's really problematic. Because it means antitrust as it is being wielded now is too backward-looking, and it's not looking at how to prevent illegal anticompetitive behavior," she said. Of the five high-profile ongoing antitrust lawsuits against Big Tech, several of which were initiated by investigations during the first Trump administration in 2019, the Google search case was seen as one of the strongest for U.S. antitrust enforcers. Now, Big Tech companies facing antitrust lawsuits are likely to use the ruling to their advantage, said John Kwoka, an economics professor at Northeastern University. "I think this gives an avenue, rightly or wrongly, for some of the other companies that are in the crosshairs to say that technology has made antitrust arguments irrelevant," he said. COMPETITION FROM AI Antitrust regulators have homed in on the tech industry because they saw it as a crucial juncture between entrenching the dominance of big players and allowing startups to thrive. The U.S. sued Google in 2020 and 2023, Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab in 2020, Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab in 2023 and Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab in 2024, and opened probes last year into Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab and Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab. In a process that takes years, antitrust cases typically proceed in two phases: a judge first decides whether the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, and next tackles the question of what it should do to restore competition. Tuesday's ruling was the first of the cases to impose requirements on a Big Tech company. Mehta largely adopted Google's proposal. "The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case," Mehta said in the ruling, calling it "astonishing" how quickly billions of dollars have flowed in to the nascent industry. ChatGPT was not released until 2022, two years into the case. A year later, when Google faced its first trial on the question of whether it held a monopoly, no witness cited AI as a near-term threat to search, the judge wrote. Now, AI companies are such a factor that the judge said they should be allowed to access Google's data to help boost competition with its search engine. LIMITS OF ANTITRUST Meta Platforms and Apple are likely to highlight the ruling in their own cases. For example, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is seeking to make Meta sell off Instagram and WhatsApp, saying the acquisitions were aimed at neutralizing upstart competitors to Facebook's supremacy in the market for platforms where users share updates with friends and family. Meta has argued that the scene has shifted in the past five years since the case was brought, through the explosion in TikTok's popularity and users' growing preference for sharing in group chats instead of posting on social media platforms. Apple, which faces allegations of using restrictions on third-party developers to make it harder for iPhone users to switch, has argued antitrust enforcers are threatening innovation by seeking control of its product design. To be sure, even where judges are leery of going too far, pressure from antitrust cases has precipitated change. Ahead of trial this year, Google dropped restrictions on device makers who receive advertising revenue in exchange for making its search engine the default on new devices, allowing them to load competitor products. In 2019, Amazon turned off what antitrust enforcers later called a secret price-raising algorithm that cost Americans more than $1 billion. Google has already gamed out the possibility of selling off advertising technology - something that antitrust enforcers will ask a different court to order it to do at trial later this month. "Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," said Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the Public Knowledge, a nonprofit that receives funding from Google and other tech companies, in a statement. "The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice." Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York, Editing by Chris Sanders and Matthew Lewis Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Artificial Intelligence * Data Privacy * Regulatory Oversight * Intellectual Property * Antitrust 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.

Subdued decision in Google antitrust trial may help keep a monopoly in power

After a five-year legal showdown pitting the U.S. Department of Justice against Google, a federal judge concluded that the disruptive forces of artificial intelligence technology will have a better chance of hobbling an illegal monopoly than any restraints imposed by a court order. That was one of the underlying themes of a highly-anticipated ruling issued late Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. After ruling that Google's dominant search engine had turned into an illegal monopoly back in August 2024, the judge spent the next 13 months mulling the best way to rein in the technology powerhouse's bad behavior. At the same time, the technology landscape had been thrust into the throes of a tectonic shift that couldn't have been anticipated in October 2020 when the Justice Department filed its landmark antitrust case against Google. At that time, few people had even heard of OpenAI, let alone its chatbot ChatGPT, which wasn't released until late 2022. Artificial intelligence rarely came up during the 2024 trial that culminated in Google being declared a monopoly, but the technology's role became a focal point in t he remedy hearings earlier this spring -- especially AI's role in spawning conversational "answer engines" from ChatGPT and Perplexity. Those advances made the judge reluctant to use his legal power to override what may already be happening through technological evolution. Mehta ended up crafting a subdued ruling that rejected the Justice Department's push to have Google sell its popular Chrome web browser and block the company from paying -- more than $20 billion annually -- to make its search engine the default on popular devices and web browsers. Instead of embracing those drastic measures, Mehta chose to prescribe what most analysts and antitrust experts viewed as a light-handed punishment, which propelled the stock price of Google's parent Alphabet Inc. to a new high of $230.86 during Wednesday's trading. But the judge is still shaking things up by requiring Google to share some of the secret sauce in its recipe for success -- the massive trove of search data that it has accumulated from billions of users since the company's 1998 inception in a Silicon Valley garage. Parts of those databases will be opened up to rival search engines such as DuckDuckGo and other "qualified competitors." Mehta's ruling is being viewed widely as little more than a slap on the wrist, prompting reactions of disappointment and disdain. "It is a historic misfire that fails to meet the enormity of the finding that Google is a monopolist in online search," said Christo Wilson, a Northeastern University computer sciences professor, who has studied Google's operations. Investors are clearly betting that it will remain mostly business as usual at Google, which is expected to generate nearly $400 billion in revenue this year. As of early Wednesday afternoon, Alphabet's stock price had surged by 9%, creating an additional $230 billion in shareholder wealth. The Trump Administration still finds reason to celebrate Even though the judge rebuffed most of the Justice Department's proposed remedies, the agency maintained the case would foster more competition in the online search market. "This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice's ongoing fight to protect American consumers," U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. The case is uniquely tied to President Donald Trump, given that it began during his first term in office and is wrapping up during the early stages of his second stint in the White House. But outsiders don't see much for the Justice Department to crow about in Mehta's ruling, especially since it explicitly cited the attempt to force a breakup of Google as a bridge too far. The decision "may prove to be at best a pyrrhic victory," predicted Joseph V. Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank that gets some of its funding from Alphabet and other technology companies. "After making the legally sound and morally courageous decision to find Google liable for illegal monopolistic practices, Judge Mehta apparently decided that actually enforcing the law was more than he could stomach," lamented Barry Lynn, executive director for the Open Markets Institute, a group focused on minimizing corporate power. Will consumers' search experience change? The most noticeable changes in Google will probably continue to come through its responses to AI-driven competition from ChatGPT, Perplexity and others. That's been the case since Google began to highlight AI-produced summaries at the top of its search results last year and then introduced its own version of an answer engine -- via AI mode -- a few months ago. But Google will probably still be the main engine answering queries entered on the iPhone and other internet access points since the judge decided that the company is still allowed to dole out billions to be the default search choice on devices and browsers. The rationale for allowing all that money to flow went something like this: If the payments were banned, Google would be able to hoard the cash to become even more powerful and most consumers would still end up using its search engine on the iPhone and other devices because it's still best in class. Investors also liked the idea of that part of the search status quo being maintained, paving the way for Apple to continue to be paid more than $20 billion annually by Google. Apple's shares rose more than 3% in Wednesday's afternoon trading. Google will work to share its data The logistics of sharing all of that search data still needs to be worked out, but Mehta did try to limit access to Google's data in a way to protect consumer privacy. He also wants to give Google rivals just enough information that will allow them to improve the relevance of their own search results, but prevent competitors from poaching all the information that Google has stockpiled during the past 27 years. It's still unclear when the data sharing will begin because Google could still delay Mehta's ruling from taking effect through legal appeals. The company has already vowed to appeal last year's decision condemning its search engine as a monopoly, a process that couldn't start until the remedy ruling was made. The Justice Department also said it is weighing a possible appeal in an attempt to gain more court-ordered changes to Google's business practices.

Google not required to sell Chrome or Android, judge rules in antitrust case - live updates

If this ruling seems like a win for Google, it may have some of its biggest rivals to thank. In the decision, judge Amit Mehta makes it clear he was hesitant to step in to an industry that's being rapidly reshaped by advances in artificial intelligence (AI), with firms like OpenAI putting Google on the defensive. The rise of artificial intelligence "changed the course of this case", he writes in the ruling. "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," he adds.

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.

Google antitrust ruling gives Microsoft a shaky bridge over search giant's competitive moat

A pivotal antitrust ruling aimed at addressing Google's search monopoly may have handed Microsoft its best competitive opening in many years -- but it's still a slim one, and it's not clear if the Redmond company will even consider it worth the effort. In the long-awaited decision Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta barred Google from entering into exclusive contracts that make its search engine the default on browsers and smartphones, such as the search giant's longstanding deal involving Apple's iPhone. "The evidence presented required no guesswork about the exclusive agreements' impacts on competition -- they 'froze' the search ecosystem in place," Mehta wrote in the ruling. The court noted that Google paid an estimated $20 billion to Apple in 2022 alone to be the exclusive default search engine on Safari, a deal the ruling now makes illegal. That arrangement, the judge found, not only locked out rivals like Microsoft but also created a strong disincentive for Apple to build a competing search engine of its own. But under the ruling, Google can still spend billions to secure default slots, as long as partners remain free to preload or promote rivals. That leaves Microsoft to fight both Google's scale and its checkbook. So as an additional fix, Mehta also ordered Google to syndicate its organic search results and text ads to rivals for up to five years on commercially reasonable terms. For Microsoft, that could mean the ability to offer its users search results and ads backed by Google's industry-leading index. That could help Microsoft's Bing search engine -- and by extension its Copilot chatbot -- compete more effectively against Google's search dominance. The stakes are higher than ever given the foundational role of search in the emerging world of artificial intelligence. But it's not clear if Microsoft will try to take advantage of the remedies. Contacted by GeekWire on Wednesday, a spokesperson said the company had no comment on the ruling. Ruling faces strong criticism In the meantime, the decision is already drawing harsh critiques from some legal experts, business leaders, and competitors. That's because the ruling falls well short of the deep structural changes sought by the Justice Department and state attorneys general. The plaintiffs asked the court to consider measures such as breaking off Google's Chrome browser or banning the multibillion-dollar payments Google makes to secure default placement. Judge Mehta rejected those proposals, citing the risk of harming partners and consumers. As a result, Google retains the ability to pay huge sums to remain the default choice, while still benefiting from the powerful network effects of its scale. Google's critics called the ruling overly lenient and a missed opportunity. Some industry analysts called it a "big whiff" by the judge -- suggesting it will do little to loosen Google's grip on the market in practice, even if it creates new openings on paper. In a twist of historical irony, Microsoft's own antitrust case from two decades ago played a central role in the ruling. Judge Mehta leaned on that case as his main precedent, even writing, "Like Microsoft before it, Google has thwarted true competition." The earlier case set the standard that antitrust enforcers don't need to prove rivals would have thrived without the illegal conduct -- only that the conduct helped preserve monopoly power. But it also limited the remedies, steering Mehta away from a breakup of Google and toward narrower steps: banning exclusive contracts, ordering data-sharing, and requiring syndication for five years. 'Brush your teeth and search on Google' In theory, at least, Mehta's ruling means Microsoft could get Bing preloaded on smartphones under new distribution deals, while relying on syndicated Google results in the short term, and using the associated data-sharing remedy to better train Bing's own systems. Over time, the idea is that Microsoft would build up the volume of queries and user data it needs to compete independently, rather than being permanently reliant on Google. Microsoft has been working for years to improve its own search index, frequently touting the parity of its own search results in head-to-head comparisons with Google over the years. However, in Google's antitrust trial, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that the power of device and software defaults, reinforced by habit, is nearly impossible to overcome. "You get up in the morning, you brush your teeth and you search on Google," Nadella told the court, describing Microsoft as being caught in a "vicious cycle" in which Google's defaults give it more data, which improves quality, which makes it harder for competitors to win distribution. Google shares are up more than 8% this morning on news of the ruling.

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 stock surges as it gets to keep Chrome in big antitrust win

Shares in Google parent Alphabet rose sharply Wednesday after a judge ruled that the tech giant won't have to sell its Chrome browser, a big win for Google in a landmark antitrust case. Google stock rose more than 6% in pre-market trading Wednesday morning after the decision late Tuesday, which also allows it to retain control of its Android mobile operating system, easing a major regulatory headache for the company. The decision did force some concessions to loosen Google's grip on the online search landscape. It will prevent Alphabet from making some exclusive contracts with device manufacturers. The company also have to share some of its search data with competitors, which is expected to help artificial intelligence firms improve competing products. But crucially, the ruling allows Google to continue paying companies such as Apple to feature its search engine. Google pays Apple about $20 billion to make Chrome the default search engine on devices. Apple stock also rose after the ruling, with shares up about 3% in pre-market trading Wednesday. Judge Amit Mehta said the threat posed by AI competitors was part of his decision to impose less onerous terms on the company. "The emergence of [generative AI] changed the course of this case," he wrote. He said proceedings in the case "have been as much about promoting competition among [search engines] as ensuring that Google's dominance in search does not carry over into the GenAI space." Mehta also wrote that the government "over-reached in seeking forced divesture" of its Chrome and Android assets, which the company "did not use to effect any illegal restraints". The Department of Justice had argued that Google should have to sell Chrome and possibly the Android operating system, after it won a case last year that found the company had an illegal monopoly in online search. Gail Slater, head of the DOJ's antitrust division, said the decision "agreed with the need to restore competition to the long-monopolized search market." "We are now weighing our options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough in serving that goal," she said. Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit which argues for tougher antitrust enforcement, called the decision "feckless" in the face of "monopolization." Mehta said the order would only apply for five years, plus an extra year to implement it, given the "light speed" advancement of AI technology and the changing landscape in the online search market. Google voiced "concerns" with the decision, pointing to how it might "impact our users and their privacy." The company added that it would be "reviewing the decision closely." Analysts pointed toward the positives for the tech giant. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Google antitrust ruling gives its AI rivals one big reason to cheer

Many of Google's AI rivals will have been disappointed to see the tech giant escape largely unscathed from its first major antitrust battle with the U.S. government. Despite concluding Google had operated an illegal monopoly, U.S. district judge Amit Mehta did not force the company to take remedies such as spinning off its Chrome browser or to stop paying hardware vendors for prime positioning on their platform. Nor did the judge say Google must give users explicit "choice screens" that could have encouraged them to make AI rivals like ChatGPT or Perplexity their default search option. But Mehta did order Google to undertake one measure that could be a major win for its rivals: The judge ordered the tech giant to share its search index, along with certain user data, with competitors. Appeals by Google and the Justice Department could mean it may take years for the remedy to take effect but, if it goes forward, the order could shake up the competitive landscape for AI. A search engine uses something called a search index to find the best web pages to answer a query. That index is an organized list of web addresses, usually ranked by how relevant they are to any particular query. And, by all accounts, Google has the best search index in existence. That's because Google scrapes data from more of the web, more often, than most competitors. But the company's dominance also stems from the fact it has been in the search game for so long and sees many more queries than any other company -- as many as 13 billion searches every day. This has enabled Google to build a highly-accurate algorithm for ranking pages based on their relevancy and other factors, such as how authoritative a particular source of information is. This data advantage is particularly profound for less common searches. Google's search index is in many ways the crown jewel of its tech stack. And, until now, the company has not shared its search index with competitors outside a few specific partnerships, such as ones Google has struck with Apple and Meta. A search index is vital for more than just search engines. It turns out to be essential to companies building AI chatbots too. Most of today's chatbots have the ability to search the web in response to a prompt that calls for up-to-date information, such as news, or sports scores, or information about local shopping options. But finding the best web pages for the chatbot to use when formulating a response requires a good search index. A search index can also help AI companies better curate internet data that they might want to feed an AI model during training. When OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, it put Google on the defensive. Suddenly there was a new, more conversational way to find information -- one that many people preferred to a traditional Google search. At the time, many thought AI chatbots such as ChatGPT and Perplexity, might quickly erode Google's market position. That hasn't happened. But Google has been forced to respond to the advent of AI chatbots by rolling out its own AI chatbot, Gemini, and incorporating AI into its traditional search product. The company now provides AI-generated capsule "overviews" for most search queries and also, in the U.S. and many other geographies, offers an "AI mode" where people can have fuller back-and-forth, chatbot-like conversations to find information from the web. Google's search index gives Gemini and its AI search tools a powerful advantage over rivals in being able to find the most relevant, authoritative, or accurate web pages from which to draw information. In fact, OpenAI approached Google in 2024 about a partnership that would have seen the search giant share its search index with the AI company to power searches within ChatGPT, but Google rejected the idea, according to evidence presented during the antitrust trial. Because Google has so far refused to make its search index available, most AI vendors, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Perplexity, have been forced to look elsewhere. Many have turned to Microsoft, which does allow other companies to pay to use the search index that powers its Bing search engine. But Bing, because it only has about 4% marketshare in search, sees many fewer queries than Google does, and its search index is not considered to be as accurate, especially for those less common queries. The AI companies have also looked for other ways to enhance their search accuracy. Many have bought a service from an Austin, Texas-based company called SerpiApi that runs Google searches and scrapes the results to create a kind of approximation of the Google search index. OpenAI and Apple were both listed as SerpiApi customers previously, although their logos no longer appear on the company's website. Perplexity and Meta are listed as current SerpiApi customers. In addition, many AI companies have been investing millions of dollars to build their own, in-house search indices. OpenAI is among them. But Nick Turley, the company's vice president and head of ChatGPT, testified at Google's antitrust trial, that it was not easy to create a search index that could match Google's. "Our goal -- which was a lofty goal, and we're nowhere near close -- is to serve about 80% of our traffic from our own first-party index," Turley told the court. "We think 100% is long-term attainable, but so far away and so uncertain that it's not an operationalizable goal, even for a set of smart people who are ambitious and think they can do the impossible." Meta has also been reportedly working on building its own search index and search engine, in an effort to reduce its dependence on its current arrangement with Google and its use of the Bing API. The social media giant has also struck a deal with the news agency Reuters to use its content for Meta AI prompts that require information about news and current affairs. Perplexity, the AI "answer engine" that has tried to position itself as an alternative to Google as a way to find factual information, has also created its own search index. And, it too, has struck partnership deals with a number of news publishers to use their content to answer queries requiring information about current events. (Disclosure: Fortune is one of Perplexity's media partners.) If Judge Mehta's ruling stands, the path for these AI rivals to match Google's search performance will have gotten significantly easier. That's because Mehta told Google it would have to share its search index with others "at marginal cost." Google is only required to share a one-time snap-shot of the index, not allow continual access to it, as Bing does with its API. Mehta specifically rejected the idea of ongoing access because he said he wants people to build rival search indexes and was worried that if competitors had continual access to Google's they would become "free riders," and not build their own. But even having that snap-shot could give competitors a major leg up in matching Google's performance. Mehta also ruled that Google will need to share certain key data on how users interact with search results. This includes information such as where the user is located, what type of device they are using, which links they clicked on, and which links they hovered over and for how long. The judge said Google would need to turn over this data to competitors "at least twice" during the five-year period during which the court's ordered remedies would apply. Again, this information could help AI companies get closer to building Google-level search indices. In the end, both aspects of the antitrust ruling could wind up saving the AI companies significant time and money. So at least there's some silver lining for Google's AI competitors, in what was otherwise a gloomy day for those hoping to end Google's dominance as the primary way people find information digitally.

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 will not be forced to sell Chrome, antitrust trial rules

It comes a year after a judge ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search. Google will not be forced to sell its search engine Chrome, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. It follows an order to shake up Google's search engine in an attempt to curb the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly while rebuffing the US government's attempt to break up the company and impose other restraints. The 226-page decision made by US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC, 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 AI also reshaped the judge's approach to the remedies in the nearly five-year-old antitrust case brought by the US Justice Department during President Donald Trump's first administration and carried onward by President Joe Biden's administration. "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 ruling also will pry open some of the prized databases of closely guarded information about search that have provided Google with a seemingly insurmountable advantage. The handcuffs being slapped on Google will preclude contracts that give its search engine, Gemini AI app, Play Store for Android and virtual assistant an exclusive position on smartphones, 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 (€22 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 US 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 "recognises 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 more than 7 per cent 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. Apple's shares rose 3 per cent in extended trading after the ruling came out. 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 the service's owner, OpenAI, would be interested in buying Chrome, too. But the judge decided that 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. While the wrangling over Mehta's ruling continues, Google is facing another potentially debilitating threat in another antitrust case brought by the Justice Department targeting the digital ad empire that was built up around its search engine. After a different federal judge in Virginia declared that some of the technology underlying the ad network was an illegal monopoly earlier this year, the Justice Department plans to make its case for another proposed breakup in a trial scheduled to begin later this month.

Google will not be forced to sell Chrome, despite its near-monopoly, as its dominance is not 'sufficiently attributable to its illegal conduct'

The Google monopoly case should be fully wrapped up this month. Just earlier this year, the US DOJ came in hot arguing "Google must divest the Chrome browser", and accusing it of dominance "through its unlawful and unchecked, monopolistic conduct over the past decade." For a while, it felt like something might happen to break it apart, and now it appears this was all bluster. As spotted by The Guardian, a judgment was filed on Tuesday, ruling on the ongoing case of the United States of America v. Google LLC (PDF). It is effectively a final opinion from Judge Amit Mehta, who previously argued "Google is a monopolist" in August of last year and also argued it has "no true competitor". Effectively, both groups will present a final judgment to the court by September 10, 2025, ironing out any differences and adhering to the arguments made. Things aren't expected to majorly change, and this will be based on the finer details. The major determinations from the judge are as follows: Plaintiffs previously argued for Google to run a nationwide public education campaign for it to modify policies to give publishers more choice over how their information is used, and for it to be subject to "investment reporting" requirements. None of these will be enforced. Generative AI takes up a rather large portion of the court judgment. When asked, "Are there any products at Google of significance that generative AI has not been integrated into?", Google's representative simply replied "no". This case has been ongoing since October 2020, and "Much has changed since the end of the liability trial, though some things have not. Google is still the dominant firm in the relevant product markets." The judgment argues "artificial intelligence technologies, particularly generative AI ("GenAI"), may yet prove to be game changers", and it cites the "tens of millions of people" who use AI chatbots like ChatGPT. Though the case argues they aren't replacing GREs (general search engines), it surmises that developers will add features to generative AI platforms to make them function more like traditional search engines as they get better. The case argues that generative AI has "changed the course of this case." Google "urges the court to do nothing more because the GenAI technology space is highly competitive, and any further restrictions would unfairly hobble it in that fight." In line with this, many of the plaintiff's proposed acts are made to stop Google from carrying over its dominance into the future of AI. The judgment states, "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". In the four years this case has been active, it appears to have warped from a retaliatory attempt to shut down Google's monopoly to guesswork about what generative AI will do to the way we engage with search. The judgment states there's "ample evidence that lawful conduct played an important role in Google's maintenance of its monopoly" and that its dominance is partly down to "best-in-class search quality, consistent innovations, investment in human capital, strategic foresight, and brand recognition" All-in-all, this seems like a bit of a win for Google, given how dire things looked by the end of last year. In December, I argued "the devil is in the details" with this specific case, and the devil (as has become common recently) appears to be AI. Well, that and a pretty solid search engine.

Impact of US judge's ruling on Google's search dominance

Paris (AFP) - Google has escaped a breakup of its Chrome browser in a major US competition case, but the judge imposed remedies whose impact remains uncertain just as AI starts to compete with search engines. Here is what we know about how the antitrust ruling could affect the company, the wider tech sector and ordinary users of the giant's services. - What is the impact on Google? Judge Amit Mehta, who found a year ago that Google illegally maintained monopolies in online search, did not order the company to sell off its widely-used Chrome browser in his Tuesday ruling. Neither did he halt Google's agreements with companies like iPhone maker Apple or Firefox browser developer Mozilla, under which it pays them to make Google their default search engine. Instead, he ordered remedies including requirements to share data with other firms so they could develop their own search products, and barring exclusive deals to make Google the only search engine on a device or service. The ruling was "far milder than feared... (it) removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies," Hargreaves Lansdown analyst Matt Britzman commented. Google chiefs nevertheless still "disagree... strongly with the Court's intial decision in August 2024," the company's Vice-President of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a blog post -- hinting at a likely appeal that could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Stock in Google parent company Alphabet surged on Wednesday as investors welcomed the ruling. - How will this affect the wider tech sector? Mehta himself noted that the landscape has changed since the US Justice Department and 11 states launched their antitrust case against Google in 2020. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence as a challenge to traditional search "give(s) the court hope that Google will not simply outbid competitors for distribution if superior products emerge," he wrote in his ruling. "Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want," Google's Mulholland agreed. Others in the sector were unhappy with the ruling. "Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search," said Gabriel Weinberg, chief executive of privacy-conscious search engine DuckDuckGo. Beyond Google, observers have pointed out that Apple and Mozilla are both big winners from the decision. Ending tie-ups like theirs with Google would "impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets and consumers," Mehta wrote. "This is a huge win for Apple, but perhaps even more so for Mozilla, which may very well have died" without the cash infusions, former Google Ventures investor M.G. Siegler wrote on his blog. - What about ordinary search and AI users? In the near term, some search data will be shared by Google with competitors under the ruling -- with Mulholland saying the company has "concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy". Looking further ahead, "Google Search is in the process of being disrupted" by chatbots, Siegler said. A future where the company's flagship search product is completely displaced may yet be far off, as Google Search notched up more than 85 billion individual visits in the month of March 2024, the most recent with data available from Statista. That compares with around 700 million weekly users reported by OpenAI for its ChatGPT chatbot, the biggest-name generative AI product. What's more, Google is not barred from entering into the same kinds of distribution deals as it struck for online search to place its own AI products on partner devices or services. The company already reports 450 million monthly users for its Gemini chatbot app, and offers competitive tools in other areas like video generation.

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 Chrome escapes break-up in landmark antitrust ruling

Sundar Pichai at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2020 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. Image: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting/ Flicker (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Google stock prices shot up by around 8pc to $229 per share after the ruling. Google will not be forced to divest from Chrome, rules a US judge, in what is, in the end, a win for the search giant in the five-year-long lawsuit brought by the US government. In a landmark ruling last year, Google was declared to be a monopolist. What followed in the months after were strong calls from the US Department of Justice to break up the $1.8trn company by forcing it to divest from its Chrome web browser, while also making Google give space to competitors. However, in a more than 200 page-long judgement yesterday (2 September), US district judge Amit Mehta disagreed with the government. He said: "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints." "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." Google will also not be barred from paying devices manufacturers to preload Google Search, Chrome or any of its GenAI products. Although, it is prohibited from entering into exclusive deals that make it the default search engine on mobile devices. This includes all of its generative AI products, the Gemini app and Google Assistant. Judge Mehta in his judgement, wrote: "The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case." According to him, these remedies took that into account and ensures that Google's dominance in search does not carry over to the AI space. The judge ruled that the company will need to make "certain search index and user-interaction data" available to "qualified competitors" including AI firms OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity - though stopped short of asking Google to share ads data. In addition, Google will be required to publicly disclose changes it is making to its ad auctions to ensure search text ads pricing are more transparent, and that the company is not able to increase it by "fine-tuning" the auctions. The Court will establish a committee to ensure Google is establishing the remedies meant to address its monopoly behaviour. Investors were happy with the result, shooting up the company's stock prices to more than $229 per share (up around 8pc) at a point in after-hours trading yesterday. The share price is slightly down now, but still considerably higher than before the ruling. Google is also more or less happy with the judgement. In a statement posted to its website, the company said, "Today's decision recognises how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI". "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. That's why we disagree so strongly with the Court's initial decision in August 2024 on liability." Although, it still has concerns around the data sharing remedy as ruled by the Court, writing that it is "reviewing the decision closely". However, the non-profit American Economic Liberties Project, a group focused on the anti-monopoly movement is less than satisfied. Nidhi Hedge, the executive director of the group explains: "You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot." "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolisation and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly." Don't miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic's digest of need-to-know sci-tech news. Sundar Pichai at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2020 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. Image: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting/ Flicker (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

What does the Google anti-monopoly ruling mean for the company and you?

A judge required Google to share some search data with rival firms. A federal judge required Google to share some search data with rival firms but allowed the company to avoid parting ways with its lucrative Chrome browser, according to a ruling issued this week. The decision, issued by Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, spares Google a corporate breakup sought by its most vociferous critics. The decision also leaves out some remedies requested by the Department of Justice. However, the ruling called on Google to take several actions. In addition to data-sharing, Mehta said Google must abandon multi-billion-dollar exclusivity agreements that made it a default search engine for browsers like Apple's Safari, which yielded significant traffic for Google. The decision came a year after Mehta found Google had maintained an illegal monopoly power in online searching. "Notwithstanding this power, courts must approach the task of crafting remedies with a healthy dose of humility," Mehta wrote in Tuesday's ruling. "This court has done so." The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the ruling. "This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice's ongoing fight to protect American consumers. Under President Trump's leadership, we will continue our legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices," Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement posted on the DOJ website. The ruling holds little import for Google or its users in the near future, since the company retains a dominant position in the search engine market and its accommodation of the order will not require major operational changes, antitrust experts told ABC News. But, they added, the ruling could boost rival companies and hold significant implications for an industry being upended by artificial intelligence, though the ultimate outcome remains unclear. Here's what to know about how the antitrust ruling could impact Google and its users: The ruling requires Google to take concrete steps to level the playing field in the search engine market long-dominated by the Mountain View, Calif.-based tech giant, experts told ABC News. First, the company will need to share some key search data with its competitors, allowing them to benefit from the advantage enjoyed by Google as it established a large user base, absorbed massive troves of customer information and optimized its search results, the ruling said. The company must pass along a portion of its search index, a collection of website data that helps fuel the results viewed by users, according to the decision. Google currently controls about 90% of the search engine market, but the forced handover of some search data could loosen the company's grip over the industry, Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor of antitrust law at the University of Pennsylvania, told ABC News. "To the extent that these rivals can produce better search results because they have access to Google's database, that may steal market share from Google," Hovenkamp said. Next, the decision calls on Google to do away with contracts that afforded the company exclusive positioning as a default search engine for browsers or products made by other firms, such as iPhones. The company spent billions of dollars each year to secure such agreements, the ruling said, allowing Google to land in front of users. After the ruling, Google will be permitted to attain default status in certain circumstances but the company must forego exclusivity agreements that helped seal its dominance, experts said. "The question is: Will Google be more vulnerable to technological shakeups when they can't pay for exclusivity?" Rebecca Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who focuses on antitrust issues, told ABC News. "The fact that they were willing to pay billions a year means they will be more vulnerable. We just can't predict how those technological changes will play out." In a statement, Google said the ruling acknowledges growing competition in online searching amid the adoption of AI. "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," said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs. Still, Mulholland said the company has "concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely." The company disagrees strongly with the court's finding last year that Google is liable for having illegally maintained a monopoly, Mulholland added. In the short-term, Google users will not notice a change as a result of the decision, experts said. The lagging impact owes in part to a likely delay in the onset of remedies as Google files an expected appeal, they said, meaning as many as several years could pass before the changes must be implemented. Experts said they cannot predict the precise impact of the ruling because it will depend on the extent to which the competitive landscape changes and the products that rise to the fore as a result. "It's a butterfly effect," Allensworth said. "Competition shapes all of the products consumers interact with and that process takes time." In one scenario, current competitors or new entrants may significantly improve their search results due to the shared data from Google, Allensworth added. Consumers, in turn, could enjoy a wider array of options with high-quality search results. "It's very, very difficult and expensive to build a map of the internet, and Google is so far ahead of its competitors. This forced sharing could help that problem," Allensworth said. Hypothetically, a browser could include a window with multiple search engine options, allowing users to select which one they would prefer to use at a given time, Hovenkamp said. Those options could offer different types of AI tools, including some products that summarize available web pages while others display relevant search results. "There are a lot of options and this decision could open them up," Hovenkamp said. "But it will be a while before you start to see these changes."

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.

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

SAN FRANCISCO -- A 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 AI also reshaped the judge's approach to the 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's administration. "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 ruling also will pry open some of the prized databases of closely guarded information about search that have provided Google with a seemingly insurmountable advantage. The handcuffs being slapped on Google will preclude 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 more than 7% in extended trading. That would translate into a nearly $200 billion increase in Alphabet's market value, if the shares follow a similar trajectory in Wednesday's regular trading session. 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. Apple's shares rose 3% in extended trading after the ruling came out. 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. While the wrangling over Mehta's ruling continues, Google is facing another potentially debilitating threat in another antitrust case brought by the Justice Department targeting the digital ad empire that was built up around its search engine. After different federal judge in Virginia declared that some of the technology underlying the ad network to be an illegal monopoly earlier this year, the Justice Department plans to make its case for another proposed breakup in a trial scheduled to begin later this month.

Judge rules Google won't have to sell Chrome browser

A Washington judge ruled on September 2nd that Google will not be forced to sell its Chrome browser in a significant antitrust case. This decision marks a notable, albeit rare, victory for the Big Tech company in its ongoing battles with U.S. antitrust authorities. Judge Amit Mehta's decision considered the likely appeal of the case to the Supreme Court. William Kovacic, director of the competition law centre at George Washington University, stated, "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." This suggests a strategic approach in crafting remedies that are more likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. The ruling allows Google to retain its Android operating system, a key component, alongside Chrome, driving Google's dominance in the online advertising sector. This decision has been met with relief from investors, as the forced divestiture of Chrome or Android was viewed as a major threat to Google's core business. Rather than a forced sale, the ruling mandates data sharing with competitors, a measure aimed at fostering competition in the advertising market. Google is scheduled to face a trial later this month regarding remedies in a separate Justice Department case. In this parallel case, a judge has already determined that Google holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. The upcoming trial will focus on the appropriate corrective actions. Judge Mehta acknowledged the rapid influx of capital into the artificial intelligence sector, noting its impact on the competitive landscape. "The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing," Mehta wrote, adding that AI companies are now better positioned to challenge Google than traditional search engine developers have been in decades. This observation factored into the judge's considerations regarding potential remedies. The ruling brings relief to Apple and other device and web browser manufacturers, allowing them to continue benefiting from advertising revenue sharing agreements with Google. These agreements provide payments to these companies for Google searches conducted on their devices. In a blog post responding to the ruling, Google expressed concerns about the mandated data sharing. The company stated it was worried that data sharing "will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely." This highlights Google's sensitivity to potential privacy implications arising from the required data disclosures. The decision prohibits Google from entering into exclusive contracts that would prevent device manufacturers from loading rival apps. This measure is designed to facilitate competition by making it easier for competitors to gain access to devices. Mehta suggested that banning revenue-sharing payments is less crucial given the rise of AI technologies. He specifically cited products like OpenAI's ChatGPT, which "pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet search." The data Google is now required to share could enable AI companies to enhance their development of chatbots and, in some instances, AI-driven search engines and web browsers. This data access aims to level the playing field and foster innovation in the AI space. Google faces a growing threat from increasingly popular AI tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT, which are actively eroding Google's dominance in traditional search. Google's ability to continue making payments to Apple was also preserved by the ruling. Google has also stated its intent to continue contesting a ruling that requires it to overhaul its app store, stemming from a lawsuit won by Epic Games, the maker of "Fortnite." Deepak Mathivanan, an analyst for Cantor Fitzgerald, observed that the data-sharing requirements represent a competitive risk to Google, but not immediately. He noted, "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." This indicates that the implementation of the ruling could be delayed significantly due to the appeals process.

The message for Big Tech in the Google ruling: Play nice, but play on

A wave of government antitrust suits targeting U.S. technology giants -- Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta -- spans different markets and makes different allegations of monopolistic misconduct. But the outcomes will determine the rules of competitive conduct in the modern digital economy, where the internet, data and increasingly artificial intelligence shape markets and corporate behavior. A federal judge's ruling Tuesday on what steps Google must take to fix its monopoly in online search delivered the first clear answer: You will be restrained, but not broken up or forced to fundamentally change your business practices. "For the Big Tech firms, this ruling is a relief," said David Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School. Tuesday's decision by Judge Amit P. Mehta -- the first major remedies ruling of the modern internet era -- signals how the courts may approach reshaping antitrust law after a flurry of activity under the Trump and Biden administrations to rein in the growing power of a handful of influential tech companies. The decision, handed down in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will force Google to share some search data with its competitors and put some restrictions on payments that the company uses to ensure its search engine gets prime placement in web browsers and on smartphones. But it fell far short of government requests to force it to sell its popular Chrome browser and share far more valuable data. It was a measured approach that signaled judicial reluctance to intervene too deeply in fast-changing, high-tech markets. "This is a cautious ruling," said William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and a former chair of the Federal Trade Commission. "Judge Mehta was not persuaded that the more drastic sanctions proposed by the government were warranted or appropriate." Mehta pointed to recent rapid advances in AI that are already shaking up the way people search for information as contributing to his caution. In a typical antitrust case, the court is asked to resolve a dispute based on facts of the past, he said. "Here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future," Mehta wrote. "Not exactly a judge's forte." Google had said it planned to appeal the original decision, which could prompt a lengthy court battle that could well end up in the Supreme Court. In a statement Tuesday, Google said it had concerns about how the data-sharing requirements could affect the privacy of its users. But the company praised Mehta's finding that AI had altered the landscape and said the ruling underlined the company's stance that competition remains intense. But if Mehta's work stands up on appeal -- which antitrust experts said was probable -- it will influence other judges who are weighing how to handle monopoly cases in their courtrooms. This month, a federal judge in Virginia is set to hear arguments over how to fix Google's monopoly over parts of a software system that marketers use to place advertisements on sites around the web. A judge is also set to rule as soon as this fall on whether Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, snuffed out nascent competitors. The government has also filed lawsuits against Amazon over allegations that it squeezed small merchants, and Apple, saying the company makes it hard for people to ditch its devices. Mehta's decision this week on Google search is similar, in broad strokes, to the endgame in the landmark antitrust suit against Microsoft, which was eventually settled in 2001. At the time, Microsoft was found to have illegally stifled competition in personal computer and internet browsing software. As a result, the judge prohibited the company from imposing contracts on personal computer makers, which, in effect, forced them to use or favor Microsoft's software. The settlement opened the door for upstarts like Google but did not break up Microsoft or alter its business. Mehta's minimalist package similarly forces Google to abandon "exclusive" contracts with companies like Apple and Mozilla in which it pays them to make its search engine the one that automatically comes up when someone opens a browser or smartphone home screen. But the payments can continue. Some legal experts said that part of the decision was confusing, since there can only be one provider for search queries and users rarely change the automatically selected browser on their device. Mehta's ruling appeared to be written with an eye toward appeals, antitrust experts said. Higher courts have tended to be skeptical of aggressive antitrust enforcement, and the Supreme Court in particular has taken a conservative stance on antitrust in recent years. In 2021, the nation's highest court ruled that the NCAA could not use its market power to stop payments to student athletes. In a unanimous decision, the court found a clear antitrust violation in that case. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, went out of his way to emphasize that the ruling in the NCAA case should not be taken as a sign of a progressive turn by the court's conservative majority. "Judges make for poor 'central planners' and should never aspire to the role," he wrote. Mehta echoed that sentiment throughout his 223-page ruling this week. "Notwithstanding this power, courts must approach the task of crafting remedies with a healthy dose of humility," he said in Tuesday's decision. "This court has done so." The government and tech companies could settle their lawsuits, as Microsoft did more than two decades ago. But if not, there may be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the rules of competitive engagement for dominant companies in the Big Tech era. The Google antitrust search case is a prime candidate, antitrust experts said, having made the most progress though the courts and considering that it is a huge market used by virtually everyone. "I think this one will go the distance," Kovacic said. Mehta's ruling also showed how the rapid change of technology may tie judges' hands. The government's suit against Google was filed in 2020, well before the recent surge of innovation in AI. Today, how people find information and seek answers is in flux. Internet search is one path, but increasingly so are AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, xAI and even Google's Gemini. What impact AI will have on search, and how soon, is unknown -- and a reason cited by the judge in his ruling for his reluctance to choose stronger remedies. "AI is changing the nature of search, and there's no telling how that's going to play out," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Carey Law School. "That was clearly a concern." But the uncertainty created by AI did not necessarily mean the court should do less, said Fiona Scott Morton, an economics professor at the Yale University School of Management. The government had warned that Google could leverage its dominance in search to give it an unfair advantage in the AI race. Google has already embedded its own AI's answers at the top of its search results and added a tab to its search results page where users can converse with a chatbot about their queries. "If you do too little, you might be turning AI into the next problem," said Scott Morton, a former Justice Department antitrust official.

Subdued Decision in Google Antitrust Trial May Help Keep a Monopoly in Power

After a five-year legal showdown pitting the U.S. Department of Justice against Google, a federal judge concluded that the disruptive forces of artificial intelligence technology will have a better chance of hobbling an illegal monopoly than any restraints imposed by a court order. That was one of the underlying themes of a highly-anticipated ruling issued late Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. After ruling that Google's dominant search engine had turned into an illegal monopoly back in August 2024, the judge spent the next 13 months mulling the best way to rein in the technology powerhouse's bad behavior. At the same time, the technology landscape had been thrust into the throes of a tectonic shift that couldn't have been anticipated in October 2020 when the Justice Department filed its landmark antitrust case against Google. At that time, few people had even heard of OpenAI, let alone its chatbot ChatGPT, which wasn't released until late 2022. Artificial intelligence rarely came up during the 2024 trial that culminated in Google being declared a monopoly, but the technology's role became a focal point in t he remedy hearings earlier this spring -- especially AI's role in spawning conversational "answer engines" from ChatGPT and Perplexity. Those advances made the judge reluctant to use his legal power to override what may already be happening through technological evolution. Mehta ended up crafting a subdued ruling that rejected the Justice Department's push to have Google sell its popular Chrome web browser and block the company from paying -- more than $20 billion annually -- to make its search engine the default on popular devices and web browsers. Instead of embracing those drastic measures, Mehta chose to prescribe what most analysts and antitrust experts viewed as a light-handed punishment, which propelled the stock price of Google's parent Alphabet Inc. to a new high of $230.86 during Wednesday's trading. But the judge is still shaking things up by requiring Google to share some of the secret sauce in its recipe for success -- the massive trove of search data that it has accumulated from billions of users since the company's 1998 inception in a Silicon Valley garage. Parts of those databases will be opened up to rival search engines such as DuckDuckGo and other "qualified competitors." Mehta's ruling is being viewed widely as little more than a slap on the wrist, prompting reactions of disappointment and disdain. "It is a historic misfire that fails to meet the enormity of the finding that Google is a monopolist in online search," said Christo Wilson, a Northeastern University computer sciences professor, who has studied Google's operations. Investors are clearly betting that it will remain mostly business as usual at Google, which is expected to generate nearly $400 billion in revenue this year. As of early Wednesday afternoon, Alphabet's stock price had surged by 9%, creating an additional $230 billion in shareholder wealth. The Trump Administration still finds reason to celebrate Even though the judge rebuffed most of the Justice Department's proposed remedies, the agency maintained the case would foster more competition in the online search market. "This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice's ongoing fight to protect American consumers," U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. The case is uniquely tied to President Donald Trump, given that it began during his first term in office and is wrapping up during the early stages of his second stint in the White House. But outsiders don't see much for the Justice Department to crow about in Mehta's ruling, especially since it explicitly cited the attempt to force a breakup of Google as a bridge too far. The decision "may prove to be at best a pyrrhic victory," predicted Joseph V. Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank that gets some of its funding from Alphabet and other technology companies. "After making the legally sound and morally courageous decision to find Google liable for illegal monopolistic practices, Judge Mehta apparently decided that actually enforcing the law was more than he could stomach," lamented Barry Lynn, executive director for the Open Markets Institute, a group focused on minimizing corporate power. Will consumers' search experience change? The most noticeable changes in Google will probably continue to come through its responses to AI-driven competition from ChatGPT, Perplexity and others. That's been the case since Google began to highlight AI-produced summaries at the top of its search results last year and then introduced its own version of an answer engine -- via AI mode -- a few months ago. But Google will probably still be the main engine answering queries entered on the iPhone and other internet access points since the judge decided that the company is still allowed to dole out billions to be the default search choice on devices and browsers. The rationale for allowing all that money to flow went something like this: If the payments were banned, Google would be able to hoard the cash to become even more powerful and most consumers would still end up using its search engine on the iPhone and other devices because it's still best in class. Investors also liked the idea of that part of the search status quo being maintained, paving the way for Apple to continue to be paid more than $20 billion annually by Google. Apple's shares rose more than 3% in Wednesday's afternoon trading. Google will work to share its data The logistics of sharing all of that search data still needs to be worked out, but Mehta did try to limit access to Google's data in a way to protect consumer privacy. He also wants to give Google rivals just enough information that will allow them to improve the relevance of their own search results, but prevent competitors from poaching all the information that Google has stockpiled during the past 27 years. It's still unclear when the data sharing will begin because Google could still delay Mehta's ruling from taking effect through legal appeals. The company has already vowed to appeal last year's decision condemning its search engine as a monopoly, a process that couldn't start until the remedy ruling was made. The Justice Department also said it is weighing a possible appeal in an attempt to gain more court-ordered changes to Google's business practices.

Google faces new curbs on search dominance after DOJ challenge

Google has avoided the worst-case scenario of being forced to sell off its Chrome browser, but legal experts say the court's remedies to the Justice Department's (DOJ) antitrust win could still loosen the company's grip over online search. The tech giant, which a judge ruled last year to have illegally monopolized the search market, can no longer enter into exclusive agreements that prioritize its products and must share some of its data with competitors. While antitrust advocates have dismissed this approach as inadequate, it may still give search rivals an opening, experts said. "There's been a tendency to underestimate the impact of conduct-oriented remedies and to think that the only worthy solution is the big bang of a breakup," said William Kovacic, a George Washington University law professor and former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Tuesday that Google would be allowed to hold onto Chrome, rejecting many of the remedies proposed by the DOJ. The decision marked a much-needed win for the tech giant, which lost two antitrust cases in the past year. Following the search decision, another federal judge also found that Google had an illegal monopoly over advertising technology. Mehta's ruling was cheered by many in and around the tech industry, with longtime tech analyst Dan Ives calling it a "monster win" for both Google and Apple, as the decision appears to permit the iPhone maker to retain its multibillion-dollar deal to make Google Search the default on Safari. Meanwhile, antitrust advocates lamented that it amounted to a "slap on the wrist," allowing Google to effectively maintain its monopoly over search. But Kovacic cautioned both ends of the spectrum from getting ahead of themselves. "That strikes me as mourning and celebrating way too early," he told The Hill. While the judge declined to order a breakup, he restricted Google's ability to enter into exclusive agreements that would prioritize its search engine, as well as its browser and artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot. "This obviously is not the big structural change that the Department of Justice was looking for, but it's an impactful decision, even if it's a bit cautious," said Paul Swanson, head of law firm Holland & Hart's antitrust and competition practice. He underscored the judge's decision to extend his remedies to Google's AI. Mehta, who said in his opinion that the emergence of generative AI "changed the course of this case," barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements related to its Gemini chatbot. The judge also included generative AI products within his definition of a qualified competitor, which means they will be able to benefit from his data-sharing remedies. "It seems like Judge Mehta is trying to be narrow in some ways," Swanson said. "He's not going to sweep in Chrome and say that that has to be divested. He's not going to put the Department of Justice in charge of enforcing this judgment." "But he is also being a little bit broader than he probably would have been right at the end of the trial to take account of real market dynamics that generative AI chatbots are quickly taking market share away from general search tools," he continued. Under the Tuesday ruling, Google is also required to share search index and user interaction data with qualified competitors, as well as provide search syndication services. Jeff Cross, an antitrust lawyer at Smith, Gambrell & Russell, argued this data-sharing requirement is the "most important element to restore competition." He suggested Google's user data is the "fruit" of the conduct at issue and has made its search engine a "superior product." "User data improves the quality of a general search engine. Higher quality means more users. More users mean more user data. More user data means higher quality," he explained, describing it as a "network effect." Cross underscored that he has long been skeptical Mehta would take the drastic step of breaking up Google, especially given the judge's previous writings acknowledging the company's lawful efforts to compete and that it has the "highest quality search engine." "Even a monopolist gets to compete, as long as it's competition on the merits," Cross said. "The exclusive contracts were not competition on the merits. So that sort of is consistent with his view that he's not going to crush Google." Google appeared cognizant of the potential impacts of the ruling Tuesday, striking a much more reserved tone than some others in the industry. While the company touted the judge's decision not to order a breakup, it also voiced concerns about how his other remedies "will impact our users and their privacy." "I imagine they're somewhat anxious and nervous about that because the industry has unfolded in unpredictable ways," Kovacic said. "And maybe if you open a path a bit there, maybe that's all that known and unknown rivals will need to make a great step ahead." Despite potentially opening the door to rivals, Swanson argued that Mehta's decision is not aiming to punish Google. "There are large portions of society that are less interested in promoting competition and more interested in knocking Big Tech down a notch, they want to see Big Tech suffer," Swanson said. "This is not an order that is driven by schadenfreude." "This is an order that is trying to carefully remove the monopolistic conduct, especially those exclusive deals, and then remove some of the fruits of Google's monopolistic conduct by forcing it to hand over some of its secret sauce so that others can come back up to where the court roughly thinks they might have been had Google not acted monopolistically," he added.

Analysts See 'A Win' for Alphabet as Google Dodges Big Antitrust Court Hit

In addition, Judge Amit Mehta also said that Apple (AAPL) could continue to receive payments from Alphabet for using Google's Chrome as the default search engine on its products. Mehta noted that consumers might be hurt if others couldn't have access to Chrome, although Alphabet couldn't strike exclusive deals with them. Apple shares were nearly 4% higher before the bell. Last year, Judge Mehta determined that Google had broken antitrust laws through its domination of online search, but at the time didn't decide on punishment. Mehta wrote in the decision that the Department of Justice had gone too far in calling for a divestiture of Google as the necessary remedy. Mehta noted that since last year, the growth of artificial intelligence has "changed the course of this case" as the new technology was a nascent competitive threat in search. Analysts were positive about the news. JPMorgan said that for Alphabet, the decision would have "no major impact to financials going forward, which is a win," and raised its price target to $260 to $232. Wedbush analysts said they "are increasingly constructive in the longer-term durability of Google's Search business," and also boosted their price target to $245 from $225. Entering Wednesday, shares of Alphabet were 12% higher year-to-date, while Apple shares were down 8%.

Google's Antitrust Penalty Has Been Determined. Here's What the Tech Giant Has Been Ordered to Give Up.

Google has about 90% of the market share for search engines worldwide. A federal judge decided on Tuesday that one part of Google's punishment for acting "to maintain its monopoly" and engaging in anticompetitive behavior is to share its search results data with rivals. The decision was made by Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the case Department of Justice (DOJ) v. Google. The DOJ had asked that Google be forced to sell its Chrome web browser to resolve allegations of anticompetitive behavior, but the judge denied that request, writing in a 223-page ruling that he would instead order changes to Google's business practices to stop it from monopolizing the market. Related: The U.S. Government Says Google Has a Monopoly on the 'Lifeblood of the Internet,' and Wants It to Divest Mehta proposed that Google instead should stop entering or maintaining exclusive distribution deals for Search, Chrome, Gemini, and Google Assistant with other companies. For example, Google won't be able to tie Play Store licensing agreements on the condition that companies distribute its apps. Google is also tasked with sharing data, such as user interaction data and search index data, with "qualified competitors" and charging these competitors standard rates for search and search ad services. In a statement on Tuesday, Google wrote that the new measures, which require it to share search data with competitors, could impact user privacy and that it was looking into the decision. "Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals," Google wrote in response to the ruling. "We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely." A committee will be established to carry out Mehta's final ruling, which will last six years and take effect within 60 days, per TechCrunch. Related: Here's Why Google Losing the Antitrust Case Matters, According to a Market Insights Expert Mehta's final ruling arrives one year after he decided that Google acted illegally by working to maintain a search monopoly. In an August 2024 statement following a 10-week trial, Mehta called out Google's multi-billion-dollar agreements with Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla to become the default search engine on their products and services. He labeled the agreements "exclusive" and "anticompetitive." "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Mehta wrote in the 286-page statement in August 2024. The DOJ first filed the antitrust case in 2020 and asked the judge for harsher penalties. The department wanted to force Google to sell off its Chrome and Android businesses, which resulted in an unsolicited bid: AI search engine startup Perplexity offered to buy Chrome last month for $34.5 billion in cash. The DOJ also wanted to make Google terminate its agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other partners to stop being the default search engine on their web browsers. Google paid more than $26 billion in 2021 to become the default web browser on multiple platforms, with about $18 billion going to Apple. Related: Everyone Wants to Buy Google's Chrome Browser -- Including OpenAI, According to a Top ChatGPT Executive The case will likely not be over until "late 2027 or early 2028," factoring in Google's potential appeal and possible escalation to the Supreme Court, per TechCrunch. Google is also involved in a separate antitrust lawsuit about its advertising business. In April 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ruled that Google had acted anticompetitively to maintain monopoly power in digital advertising. The remedies trial for that suit is scheduled for late September.

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.

Alphabet shares jump as US court ruling eases antitrust concerns - The Economic Times

Alphabet shares jumped 6% after a US judge ruled Google won't face a breakup in an antitrust case, allowing it to keep Chrome and Android. While some exclusive deals are barred, core partnerships like Apple remain intact. The decision eases regulatory concerns and boosts investor confidence in Alphabet's future.Google-parent Alphabet surged 6% in premarket trading on Wednesday after a US federal judge spared the company from a forced breakup in an antitrust case, marking a pivotal moment for the tech giant whose dominance in search and mobile ecosystems has long drawn scrutiny. The ruling by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. Google can continue making payments to partners such as Apple to feature its search engine, a practice central to its dominance in online search. Shares of Apple rose 2.6% premarket. The outcome is "a home run for the status quo," MoffettNathanson analysts said, adding that "being found guilty of monopolistic behaviour yet facing such a benign remedy is particularly favourable" for the tech firm. The ruling, they said, preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones. The decision lifts a key regulatory overhang that had weighed on Alphabet's valuation, with analysts noting that the company had traded at a discount to peers amid fears of a forced divestiture. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7% year-to-date, outperforming Amazon but trailing Meta and Microsoft. The US government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition.

AI-pushed, Google Search not destroyed - The Economic Times

A US court has ruled in favour of Google in a major antitrust case. Google will retain Chrome and Android. The court acknowledged the growing competition from AI search engines like ChatGPT. Google must share data with rivals to promote competition. The case may go to the Supreme Court. Google faces ongoing antitrust challenges.On Tuesday in Washington, US district judge Amit Mehta ruled against severe consequences proposed by the Department of Justice against Google, which included the forced sale of the tech behemoth's Chrome browser, which provides data that helps its ad business deliver targeted ads. This reprieve in the most high-profile US antitrust case of recent years has been brought on by AI-driven search. Google gets to keep Chrome and Android because the court, which last year found it abusing its monopoly power, now finds the market for search has changed enough to not justify carving up Google. 'Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity now represent genuine alternatives to Google Search,' the ruling said. As a result, Google can continue to pay distributors such as Apple to use its search engine. Importantly, the verdict directed Google to share its data with rivals to further open up competition in online search. The judicial remedy relies on the premise that venture capital in AI-driven search is surging, and Google is best placed to uphold the quality of its search engine. Making it share its technical knowledge would, however, give rise to the 'free rider' problem, where competitors gain unduly from a company's innovation. Google is yet to demonstrate a capacity to carry its market dominance of search into generative AI and, thus, gets to keep Chrome, which would find it difficult to survive as a standalone product owned by another company. Distributors like Apple would face collateral damage if Google's search were degraded by any change of ownership, or dilution of innovation. It could be years before Google is made to comply with these terms, if at all. The case will head for the US Supreme Court after Google appeals it being termed an illegal monopolist. Yet, various parts of Google are facing antitrust action in the US, and the company will probably find it difficult to remain in its current form indefinitely. A breather in the most bruising battle should help Google to make a bigger play in AI.

Alphabet shares surge over 6% after court rules against a breakup

Alphabet's shares surged after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up Google, adding over $170 billion to its market value. The ruling allows Google to maintain control over Chrome and Android, while barring certain exclusive contracts. Analysts believe this outcome removes a significant legal overhang, potentially deepening Alphabet's partnership with Apple and integrating Gemini AI into iPhones. Alphabet shares jumped more than 6% on Wednesday after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up the Google parent, clearing a major regulatory overhang and putting the stock on track to add more than $170  billion to its market value. The ruling on Tuesday by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. Google was also allowed to keep making payments to partners such as Apple to feature its search engine. Shares of the iPhone maker were up 3%. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7% this year, slightly outperforming the S&P 500 index, but trailing Big Tech peers Meta and Microsoft. The ruling preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones, analysts said. "The payments from Google were a huge revenue generator for the tech giant and the fact these can continue will be a relief in what has been a turbulent year," said Ben Barringer, head of technology research at Quilter Cheviot, an investor in Apple and Alphabet. Apple was in early talks to use Gemini AI to underpin a revamped Siri voice assistant on its devices, Bloomberg News reported last month. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Alphabet's shares trade at 20.3 times earnings expectations, a discount to other so-called Magnificent Seven stocks and the broader S&P 500 index. The Justice Department said the remedies will pry open the market for search services and protect GenAI competition. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup on Tuesday, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Google must share certain search index and interaction data with competitors, the ruling said, a move that can help AI rivals build and improve competing chatbots and search tools. Even so, Google's scale and data lead remain formidable, analysts said. "The order requires data sharing that is limited in scope, in a way we conclude may only marginally boost competition by generative AI services," said Nick Rodelli, legal analyst at CFRA Research's Washington Analysis.

ETtech Explainer: Google vs US in search monopoly case - The Economic Times

After hearing arguments from both the US government and Google, US federal Judge Amit P Mehta gave his ruling on the suit filed to break up the search major as it broke antitrust law. The judgment could reshape how Google strikes deals and continues to maintain its supremacy in online search.In August 2024, US federal Judge Amit P Mehta ruled that Google broke antitrust law when it paid companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla billions of dollars to automatically appear as the search engine in browsers and on smartphones. He ruled that Google's monopoly allowed it to inflate the prices for some search ads, bending the rules of competition. To fix this issue, the government had suggested aggressive measures such as forcing Google to sell its Chrome web browser and share proprietary data with competitors. The prosecutors also wanted Google to stop paying Apple money to keep Google Search the default on its devices. Google had said some tweaks to its business practices would be enough. Now, there has been some movement in this case. Let's answer some questions about this. What did the judge decide? After hearing witnesses from both sides, Judge Mehta amended his ruling. On September 2, Judge Mehta ruled that Google does not have to sell Chrome or Android, but the judge said that Google must do the following: What is the deal with Apple? The infamous Apple-Google deal works like this: Google pays Apple about $20 billion per year to make sure its search engine is set as the default for the Safari browser on iPhones, iPads, and Macs, plus Siri and other Apple services. Google essentially leases the default position on Apple platforms. Users can change this through their settings. Under the new proposals, the deal can continue, but it should not be exclusive. This means Apple should still allow users to choose alternatives like Bing or DuckDuckGo. Revenue from this privilege goes to Apple, comprising about 20% of Apple Services' income, and Google benefits from the incoming search traffic from Apple users. Google handles the technology and earns ad revenue, and Apple doesn't need to run its own search engine. Under the court ruling, Apple can renegotiate the rates annually, maybe increasing what it charges Google. How will this affect the wider tech sector? The judge noted that the tech landscape has gone through a transformation since the antitrust case against Google was launched by the US Justice Department and 11 states in 2020, with the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI). The viral technology has been "a challenge to traditional search, which give(s) the court hope that Google will not simply outbid competitors for distribution if superior products emerge," he wrote in his ruling. Others in the sector were unhappy with the ruling. "Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search," said Gabriel Weinberg, chief executive of privacy-conscious search engine DuckDuckGo. Beyond Google, observers have pointed out that Apple and Mozilla are both big winners from the decision. What about ordinary search and AI users? In the near term, some search data will be shared by Google with competitors under the ruling, with Google vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Ann Mulholland, saying the company has "concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy." (With inputs from AFP)

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.

Google's Ad Stack Remains Intact After Ruling, but Could Face Stiffer Competition, Experts Say | PYMNTS.com

By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. The penalty imposed on the company by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, one year after finding that Google operates an illegal monopoly in online advertising, was far more modest than the Justice Department had sought and competitors had hoped for. It does not require Google's parent Alphabet to divest any assets, or share its vast data horde with competitors, and it allows Google to continue to pay Apple and others for placement of its search engine and Chrome browser on their devices. Instead, it merely bars Google from paying for exclusivity on devices and requires it to share only a limited amount of search data. In Europe, where Google was facing a fine over its online advertising monopoly that was already expected to be more modest than previous antitrust penalties levelled by the European Commission, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič made an unusual 11th-hour intervention to block even that from being imposed. According to Politico, the halt was called to prevent further antagonizing U.S. President Donald Trump, who last week vowed to impose "substantial additional tariffs" on countries that have digital rules he deems as discriminatory against U.S. companies, threatening the fragile truce reached last month in the U.S.-EU framework trade agreement. The U.S. had pressed for changes to the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act as part of those negotiations, but the EU refused and the changes were not incorporated. According to DBD Investment Bank Managing Director Philip Alberstat, however, Mehta's ruling still has the potential to bring about major changes to the competitive landscape. "Google has been paying platforms like Apple and others massive sums of money for exclusivity that has essentially created insurmountable barriers to entry," he said. "This ruling changes all that in theory, by changing the competitive landscape." Alberstat also saw the requirement that Google share some search data as creating new business opportunities for startups and potential competitors. "In my opinion, one of the main goals with the ruling is to help innovation in business," he said. "The requirement for Google to share search data creates entirely new business opportunities. Companies can now build analytics, insights and other tools around data that were previously locked inside Google." Companies that rely on Google to reach customers and market their products, however, may see little immediate change, according to Roman Eloshvili, founder and CEO of XData Group. "For businesses, the immediate takeaway is that Google remains a dominant force," he said. "It's not going anywhere, and with Chrome and Android still under its control, the core ecosystem remains intact." What has changed, he added, is the distribution game. "With the ban on exclusive contracts in place, it means that alternative providers could get a better shot at visibility without being crushed by Google's dominance," he said. "That's good news for companies looking to diversify how they reach customers online -- they now have more freedom to strike deals with rival search engines." The biggest question raised by Judge Mehta's ruling is how it will affect the evolution of the artificial intelligence (AI) search business. "The emergence of gen AI changed the course of this case," Mehta wrote in his ruling. He noted the emergence of AI-powered search is already reshaping the competitive landscape and that imposing onerous remedies could "jolt the system" under the circumstances when market forces are "already doing the work." The SEO Works CEO Ben Foster warned, however, that allowing Google to continue to pay for placement on third-party devices could leave it in a position to dominate the AI search game. "It can still be the search engine of choice for Android phones and also continue to pay Apple to be the default search engine there," he noted. "This means as search evolves with AI technology, Google's AI solutions will have the best chance of adoption. AI challengers such as Perplexity and OpenAI may benefit from greater access to data, but they still face the uphill task of gaining scale and adoption among users."

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.

Alphabet shares jump as U.S. court ruling eases antitrust concerns

Alphabet shares rose six per cent in premarket trading on Wednesday after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up the Google parent in an antitrust case, easing a major regulatory overhang for the tech giant. The ruling on Tuesday by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. It, however, allowed Google to continue to make payments to partners such as Apple to feature its search engine. Shares of the iPhone maker were up 3.4 per cent premarket. Google must share certain search index and interaction data with competitors, the ruling said, a move that can help AI rivals build and improve competing chatbots and search tools. Alphabet was set to add roughly US$144 billion to its $2.56 trillion market valuation, if current gains hold. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7 per cent this year, slightly outperforming the S&P 500 index but trailing Big Tech peers Meta and Microsoft. The ruling preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones, analysts said. "For Apple, this news seems to save it $20 billion+ flowing through the Services segment. In short, it is just what the doctor ordered since Services is all that matters for the multiple," said Ben Reitzes, analyst at Melius Research. Apple was in early talks to use Gemini AI to underpin a revamped Siri voice assistant on its devices, Bloomberg News reported last month. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup on Tuesday, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Alphabet's shares trade at 20.3 times earnings expectations, a discount to other so-called Magnificent Seven stocks and the broader S&P 500 index

Why Alphabet Stock Is Surging Today: Court Rules Google Can Retain Chrome | Investing.com UK

Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) shares jumped dramatically in premarket trading, rising over 5% to $223.69 following a federal court ruling that many investors viewed as a significant victory for Google's parent company. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta delivered a decision that barred Google from exclusive search deals but rejected the Justice Department's most aggressive remedies, including forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser. The ruling represents the conclusion of a five-year antitrust battle that began during the first Trump administration, marking the government's first major monopoly challenge in a generation since the Microsoft case of the 1990s. The court's decision represents a measured approach to antitrust enforcement, with Judge Mehta explicitly stating that remedies should be approached "with humility" given the rapidly evolving competitive landscape. While the ruling prohibits Google from paying to be the exclusive search engine on devices and browsers, it allows the company to continue making payments for distribution of its products, preserving the lucrative relationship with Apple that generates over $20 billion annually. The judge specifically noted that completely barring such agreements would harm recipients like Apple and could lead to "fewer products and less product innovation." The Justice Department had sought much harsher penalties, including forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser and implement "choice screens" requiring users to actively select their preferred search engine. However, Mehta rejected these proposals as overreaching, writing that "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints." The decision also requires Google to share some search data with competitors to help level the playing field, though it stops short of mandating the sharing of advertising data. Wall Street analysts immediately characterized the ruling as a "huge win" for both Google and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), noting that it preserves the existing business model while imposing relatively modest restrictions. The decision paves the way for expanded AI partnerships between the two companies, particularly as Apple has already integrated OpenAI's ChatGPT into its services and has held discussions about incorporating Google's Gemini AI system. Judge Mehta's ruling was significantly influenced by the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology, which he viewed as a natural disruptor to Google's traditional search dominance. The court noted that "advances in AI have happened quickly" and weighed against heavy-handed judicial intervention in the search market. Generative AI platforms like ChatGPT have emerged as legitimate threats to Google's legacy search business, as users increasingly turn to AI chatbots for answers they previously sought through traditional search engines. The judge emphasized that major technology companies are now "in a better position, both financially and technologically, to compete with Google than any traditional search company has been in decades." This technological shift provided a key justification for the court's restrained approach, with Mehta writing that there were "strong reasons not to jolt the system and to allow market forces to do the work." The ruling reflects a recognition that the competitive dynamics of the search market are already changing organically through AI innovation. This perspective stands in contrast to more aggressive antitrust enforcement approaches, suggesting that courts may be increasingly reluctant to impose dramatic structural remedies when technological disruption is already reshaping market dynamics. The decision signals that future antitrust cases may need to account more heavily for the rapid pace of technological change and the emergence of new competitive threats beyond traditional market boundaries. Alphabet shares closed Tuesday at $211.99, down 0.72% during regular trading hours, before surging to $211.99 in premarket trading as of 6:05 AM EDT on Wednesday, representing a 5.68% gain. The dramatic premarket movement reflects investor relief that the company avoided the most severe potential penalties, with the stock's 52-week range spanning from $142.66 to $215.34. With a market capitalization of $2.56 trillion, Alphabet maintains its position as one of the world's most valuable companies. The company's financial metrics remain robust, with a trailing price-to-earnings ratio of 22.62 and earnings per share of $9.37. Revenue for the trailing twelve months reached $371.4 billion, while net income available to common shareholders totaled $115.57 billion, reflecting a healthy profit margin of 31.12%. Alphabet's strong cash position of $95.15 billion provides significant financial flexibility as it navigates the evolving competitive landscape. Analyst sentiment remains generally positive, with the average price target of $219.04 slightly above the current premarket levels. The company's performance continues to outpace broader market indices, with year-to-date returns of 11.58% compared to the S&P 500's 9.08% gain. The favorable court ruling removes a significant overhang that had been weighing on investor sentiment, potentially clearing the path for continued strong performance in the technology sector's ongoing evolution toward AI-driven services. *** Looking to start your trading day ahead of the curve?

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)

Very good news for Google

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, soars in pre-market trading today, after the US court ruling on competition amongst search engines. For months, Alphabet has been living with the risk of having to divest itself of its Chrome and Android search engines on the grounds of unfair competition. But the judge in charge of the case has ruled in favor of the tech giant. Alphabet will not be broken up, but in exchange, it will still have to share certain data with its rivals to strengthen competition in online search. This ruling is obviously a relief for the group, whose lucrative business model is based on its strong market dominance. This is all the more so because it puts an end to five years of legal battles between the competition authorities and Alphabet. The judge was initially quite hostile towards Google's dominance of online searches and advertising. However, his decision was influenced by the breakthrough of artificial intelligence technologies, notably OpenAI's ChatGPT, which is a real threat to the supremacy of traditional internet search. Anthropic and Perplexity are also among the best-known AI technologies. These technologies are already gaining market share, and Google's data sharing could even accelerate the development of chatbots and even an AI-based browser. Following the legal decision, Apple's stock rose 3%. The iPhone maker receives significant amounts of money from Google (around $20bn per year, according to analysts) to remain the default search engine and share advertising revenue. If Alphabet is not broken up, Apple can continue to benefit from this lucrative contract. However, the ruling has prohibited Google from entering into exclusive contracts with device brands, which will now be able to install competing search engine applications. Google has, of course, appealed the decision. This could delay the implementation of the measures by several years. By then, the competitive landscape of the market and technology will likely have evolved, so judges will certainly have to take new factors into account when rendering a verdict.

Alphabet shares jump as US court ruling eases antitrust concerns

(Reuters) -Alphabet shares rose 6% in premarket trading on Wednesday after a U.S. judge ruled against breaking up the Google parent in an antitrust case, easing a major regulatory overhang for the tech giant. The ruling on Tuesday by Judge Amit Mehta allows Google to retain control of its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, while barring certain exclusive contracts with device makers and browser developers. It, however, allowed Google to continue to make payments to partners such as Apple to feature its search engine. Shares of the iPhone maker were up 3.4% premarket. Google must share certain search index and interaction data with competitors, the ruling said, a move that can help AI rivals build and improve competing chatbots and search tools. Alphabet was set to add roughly $144 billion to its $2.56 trillion market valuation, if current gains hold. "This outcome removes a significant legal overhang and signals that the court is willing to pursue pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Alphabet shares are up nearly 11.7% this year, slightly outperforming the S&P 500 index, but trailing Big Tech peers Meta and Microsoft. The ruling preserves Alphabet's ability to deepen its partnership with Apple and potentially integrate its Gemini AI into future iPhones, analysts said. "For Apple, this news seems to save it $20 billion+ flowing through the Services segment. In short, it is just what the doctor ordered since Services is all that matters for the multiple," said Ben Reitzes, analyst at Melius Research. Apple was in early talks to use Gemini AI to underpin a revamped Siri voice assistant on its devices, Bloomberg News reported last month. The U.S. government sued Google in 2020, alleging it illegally maintained a monopoly in search through exclusionary deals with device makers and browser developers. Judge Mehta ruled last year that Google violated antitrust laws but declined to order a breakup on Tuesday, citing the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT as emerging competition. Alphabet's shares trade at 20.3 times earnings expectations, a discount to other so-called Magnificent Seven stocks and the broader S&P 500 index. (Reporting by Akash Sriram, Rashika Singh and Akriti Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala and Sriraj Kalluvila) By Akash Sriram and Rashika Singh

Google ruling shows how tech can outpace antitrust enforcement

(Reuters) -The rapid pace of development in the world of tech, particularly in AI, spurred a judge's cautious approach to curbing Google's online search monopoly, revealing a hurdle for U.S. antitrust enforcers' efforts to win their other cases against Big Tech. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last year that Alphabet's Google holds an illegal monopoly, saying its dominance in online search "has gone unchallenged for well over a decade." But he declined on Tuesday to impose stringent requirements that the government had called for, saying the rise of AI companies in the past two years has already created competitive pressure. He noted that tens of millions of people use generative AI programs like ChatGPT, Perplexity and Claude in nearly the same way they look for information they previously found on Google. "Innovation is a hare while antitrust law is a tortoise," said Adam Kovacevich, head of the Big Tech-funded industry group Chamber of Progress. Courtney Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly group, said the ruling sends the wrong signal to the AI sector. "It's really problematic. Because it means antitrust as it is being wielded now is too backward-looking, and it's not looking at how to prevent illegal anticompetitive behavior," she said. Of the five high-profile ongoing antitrust lawsuits against Big Tech, several of which were initiated by investigations during the first Trump administration in 2019, the Google search case was seen as one of the strongest for U.S. antitrust enforcers. Now, Big Tech companies facing antitrust lawsuits are likely to use the ruling to their advantage, said John Kwoka, an economics professor at Northeastern University. "I think this gives an avenue, rightly or wrongly, for some of the other companies that are in the crosshairs to say that technology has made antitrust arguments irrelevant," he said. COMPETITION FROM AI Antitrust regulators have homed in on the tech industry because they saw it as a crucial juncture between entrenching the dominance of big players and allowing startups to thrive. The U.S. sued Google in 2020 and 2023, Meta Platforms in 2020, Amazon in 2023 and Apple in 2024, and opened probes last year into Nvidia and Microsoft. In a process that takes years, antitrust cases typically proceed in two phases: a judge first decides whether the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, and next tackles the question of what it should do to restore competition. Tuesday's ruling was the first of the cases to impose requirements on a Big Tech company. Mehta largely adopted Google's proposal. "The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case," Mehta said in the ruling, calling it "astonishing" how quickly billions of dollars have flowed in to the nascent industry. ChatGPT was not released until 2022, two years into the case. A year later, when Google faced its first trial on the question of whether it held a monopoly, no witness cited AI as a near-term threat to search, the judge wrote. Now, AI companies are such a factor that the judge said they should be allowed to access Google's data to help boost competition with its search engine. LIMITS OF ANTITRUST Meta Platforms and Apple are likely to highlight the ruling in their own cases. For example, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is seeking to make Meta sell off Instagram and WhatsApp, saying the acquisitions were aimed at neutralizing upstart competitors to Facebook's supremacy in the market for platforms where users share updates with friends and family. Meta has argued that the scene has shifted in the past five years since the case was brought, through the explosion in TikTok's popularity and users' growing preference for sharing in group chats instead of posting on social media platforms. Apple, which faces allegations of using restrictions on third-party developers to make it harder for iPhone users to switch, has argued antitrust enforcers are threatening innovation by seeking control of its product design. To be sure, even where judges are leery of going too far, pressure from antitrust cases has precipitated change. Ahead of trial this year, Google dropped restrictions on device makers who receive advertising revenue in exchange for making its search engine the default on new devices, allowing them to load competitor products. In 2019, Amazon turned off what antitrust enforcers later called a secret price-raising algorithm that cost Americans more than $1 billion. Google has already gamed out the possibility of selling off advertising technology - something that antitrust enforcers will ask a different court to order it to do at trial later this month. "Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," said Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the Public Knowledge, a nonprofit that receives funding from Google and other tech companies, in a statement. "The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice." (Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York, Editing by Chris Sanders and Matthew Lewis)

Google can keep Chrome -- but must share data with rivals, judge rules | Marketing | Campaign India

The tech giant scores a partial victory that concludes a five-year US legal saga, but remedies on its adtech business monopoly are also imminent in a separate case. A US federal court has ruled that Google can retain ownership of its Chrome web browser but must open up access to critical search data for competing firms. District Judge Amit Mehta's order follows a long legal battle over Google's dominance in online search and its use of exclusive agreements with device makers. Opening up search data to competitors The US Department of Justice had sought a structural remedy, including the potential sale of Chrome, but Judge Mehta deemed such a move "a poor fit for this case." Under the ruling, Google is barred from entering into exclusive contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or its Gemini AI app. It was revealed at trial that Google paid more than $26bn for such deals with Apple, Mozilla and others in 2021. Smartphone manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung, and Motorola can now pre-load or promote rival browsers, search engines, or assistants alongside Google products. However, Google will still be permitted to pay partners for default (but not exclusive) placement. In addition, Google will have to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to certain competitors. Google will also be required to offer certain competitors search and search text ads syndication services, which will open up the market by enabling rivals and potential rivals to deliver high-quality search results and ads and compete with Google as they develop their own capacity. AI is reshaping competition US Attorney General Pamela Bondi said: "This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice's ongoing fight to protect American consumers. Under President Trump's leadership, we will continue our legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices." Shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company, surged more than 8% following the decision. Industry analysts noted the ruling was less severe than markets had anticipated. Google welcomed the outcome, highlighting the role of artificial intelligence in reshaping competition. "Today's decision recognises how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information," the company said in a statement. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater emphasised that the remedies are designed to restore competition in the search market, though she noted the Department of Justice is "weighing whether the ordered relief goes far enough." The decision comes after Judge Mehta ruled that "Google's unlawful behaviour has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways." Separately, a remedies trial is scheduled to begin on September 22, 2025, before US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia. The DOJ has already proposed solutions, which range from divestitures of Google's AdX exchange and publisher ad server (DFP/Ad Manager) to behavioral mandates such as enhanced data sharing.

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.