Antitrust judge: Google does not have to sell Chrome, but stop exclusive agreements
The first big anti-monopoly case of the new tech era produces modest remedies, rejecting the government's aggressive spin-off demands. The advent of artificial intelligence has changed the market
2' min read
2' min read
Antitrust remedies but 'humble'. A federal judge actually sided with Google in the landmark search engine monopoly case, rejecting the government's request to order the tech giant to sell its Chrome browser. The ruling also avoided outright banning payment and revenue-sharing agreements between Google and companies such as Apple.
The case took on a significance beyond Google itself: it was the first major appeal in the new tech era, which also sees legal battles at stake against Amazon, Apple and Meta. For a previous case of similar influence one has to go back to the 1990s with Microsoft.
On Wall Street, the stock of Google's parent company Alphabet breathed a sigh of relief: in the after-market it gained more than 8 per cent. Apple, which in the past has grossed $20 billion a year from Google, gained 3 per cent on the stock market.
The magistrate, Amit Mehta, had previously found Google guilty of an illegal monopoly in search engines; the current decision represents the conclusion of a second phase of proceedings, dedicated to remedies. The case is not closed: further appeals are to be expected.
Google, with the new ruling, does not avoid new limits. In practice, the company will be able to continue to offer payments for the distribution of its products; what it will not be able to do is to pay to sign exclusive distribution contracts, i.e. giving priority to its search engine, its browser, or its artificial intelligence chatbot. It will also have to share search-related data with rivals to ensure adequate competition.
