A US federal judge declined to order the breakup of Google despite ruling the tech giant monopolised online search and advertising markets, instead imposing narrower restrictions to curb the power of the $2 trillion company, according to Politico.
In a highly anticipated antitrust trial on Tuesday, District Judge Amit Mehta rejected the US Justice Department’s request to force Google to spin off its Chrome browser and Android businesses. The ruling represents the most significant antitrust decision concerning Big Tech’s business practices since the unsuccessful attempt to break up Microsoft in the early 2000s.
While avoiding the most severe outcome, Google must now share some of its search data with competitors and is prohibited from signing agreements that establish its products, including its artificial intelligence systems, as default tools on mobile devices.
Judge Mehta agreed with the government’s fundamental assertion that Google needed to permit competitors to gain market footholds. The case, which originated during the first Trump administration, offers cautious optimism for other technology companies facing potential breakups of their businesses, including Meta, Amazon and Apple.
The decision constitutes merely the first of two major antitrust cases Google confronts this year. In separate proceedings brought by the Justice Department, the company still faces potential dismantling of its advertising technology business. Legal specialists anticipate Google will appeal Tuesday’s ruling, potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court review.
The European Union has similarly sought to intervene, employing its robust online antitrust regulations to govern an industry it believes the United States fostered through an excessively hands-off approach.
In a recent development, Google received an eleventh-hour reprieve in Europe on Monday when expected penalties for its advertising practices were postponed. This intervention by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič coincides with Trump’s threats to restrict chip sales and other technology to countries allegedly discriminating against American companies.
However, Boston University economics professor Florian Ederer questioned whether the prescribed remedies would substantially alter market dynamics.
“It would have been a real landmark decision if we had seen a breakup. This is the best outcome [for Google], given that Google lost this case,” Ederer said.
Global implications and ongoing challenges
The ruling acknowledges evolving market conditions since the case commenced in October 2020, specifically prohibiting Google from establishing its Gemini AI as the default artificial intelligence product on mobile devices. The decision notes that the generative AI market demonstrates significantly greater competition than search, citing rival models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Anthropic among others.
As the technology industry awaits Google’s next remedy trial scheduled for later this month concerning digital advertising monopolisation, other major antitrust proceedings loom that could fundamentally reshape industry operations globally.
Amazon faces trial in early 2027 over allegations of suppressing competition, while Apple confronts claims that its products deliberately lock users into its ecosystem.
Simultaneously, chipmaker Nvidia remains under Justice Department investigation regarding its acquisition of AI start-up Run:ai, reflecting growing regulatory concern about potential market cornering in artificial intelligence reminiscent of previous dominance in e-commerce, social media and online search.
