Google must share its search results with “qualified competitors,” a federal judge ruled on Tuesday in a landmark antitrust case that allows the tech company to remain intact and doesn’t force the sale of its Chrome web browser or Android operating system.
United States District Judge Amit Mehta determined that although Google won’t be required to divest Chrome, it will be barred from participating in exclusive contracts that make its services the default on smartphones and other devices. However, that doesn’t prevent Google from paying phone makers to preload Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini on their products.
The ruling stems from a 2020 lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice, which argued Google was maintaining an illegal online search monopoly. Mehta ruled in favor of the DOJ last year.
“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” the judge wrote at the time.
The case proceeded with the trial’s remedies phase in which the DOJ proposed the sale of Chrome, the sharing of search data, among other remedies. Google agreed to end its exclusive deals with companies but opposed virtually every other remedy, especially the prospect of sharing its search results with rivals to promote competition.
Tuesday’s decision is considered a win for Google, although it is anticipated that it will file an appeal. The Washington Examiner contacted Google and the DOJ for comment.
GOOGLE TO INVEST $9 BILLION IN AI DATA CENTERS IN VIRGINIA
Mehta said the emergence of generative artificial intelligence tools “changed the course of this case,” noting that the remedies phase was “as much about promoting competition among [general search engines] as ensuring that Google’s dominance in search does not carry over into the GenAI space.”
Google is subject to a separate antitrust case involving its online advertising technology. The company experienced a setback in April when a federal judge ruled that it maintained an illegal monopoly in this specific area of its business.
