Key points
- A judge rules against the forced sale of Chrome, citing insufficient evidence of anti-competitive behavior.
- Google must share data with competitors and cease certain exclusive distribution contracts.
- Google can continue payments to partners like Apple for default search engine placement.
- Ruling allows Google to retain Android operating system. Judge acknowledges the rise of generative AI as a potential competitive force.
A federal judge has ruled against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to force Google to divest its Chrome browser in a significant antitrust case. Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia ruled that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that Google’s market dominance stemmed from illegal anti-competitive practices to warrant such a drastic measure.
While rejecting the divestiture, the judge did mandate several behavioral changes aimed at curbing Google’s power. These changes include prohibiting Google from entering into exclusive contracts regarding the distribution of its search engine, Chrome browser, and other products, such as Google Assistant and Gemini.
Furthermore, Google is prohibited from tying the licensing of its Play Store or other apps to the pre-installation or promotion of other Google services.
The ruling allows Google to maintain its lucrative agreements with companies like Apple, continuing the payments that ensure Google Search remains the default search engine on iPhones and other Apple products. This decision sent Google’s stock soaring and also boosted Apple’s shares.
Judge Mehta’s decision emphasized a distinction between actions that maintain a monopoly through anti-competitive practices and actions that contribute to a monopoly’s growth due to superior product quality.
He argued that while Google holds a dominant position in the search market, the current evidence doesn’t definitively link this to illegal conduct, justifying divestiture of its Chrome browser. He also rejected a contingent divestiture of Google’s Android operating system due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
Crucially, the judge also acknowledged the emergence of generative AI as a significant competitive factor. This technological shift, he reasoned, provides a compelling argument against disrupting the current market structure and instead allowing market forces to play out.
The ruling requires Google to share specific data, including its search index and user interaction data, with “qualified competitors,” alongside search and search text ads syndication services, to foster a more level playing field. This mandate directly addresses the DOJ’s concerns about Google’s anti-competitive behavior, without resorting to the more radical step of forced asset sales.
This decision follows a previous antitrust case in which the DOJ and multiple states successfully argued that Google had abused its market dominance in online search and search advertising.
While Google avoided the most severe penalty this time, the judgment still represents a significant legal blow and could potentially impact its substantial search advertising revenue, which exceeded $198 billion in 2024.
The ongoing impact of this ruling, as well as the likelihood of an appeal, remains to be seen. Still, it undoubtedly sets a new precedent in the evolving landscape of tech antitrust law.
