Judge rules in illegal monopoly for illegal search for Google: can be controlled by chrome

Google will not have to sell its Chrome browser to solve its illegal monopoly in an online search, the DC District Court AMIT Mehta ruled on Tuesday. More than a year ago, Judge Mehta discovered that Divl for search had breached Act Sherman Antitrustov; His judgment now determines what Google must do in response.

Mehta refused to approve some more ambitious proposals from the justice department to return to the market on the market market. In addition to commissioning Google Chrome, it will also allow the company to continue to pay distribution partners for pre-load or set up its searches or ai products. But he ordered Google to share some valuable search information to compete and throw the search for the exclusive offers to distribute its searches or ai and assisted products in ways that can cut off the distribution for rivals.

It is the most important antitrustic drugs that are judgments against the technological giant in about 25 years, from the case of DOJ v. Microsoft. Although in case it means the main turning point, it could still be year until Google is actually required to apply these solutions – if ever. Now that Mehta handed over the judgments about drugs, Google can finally complain about the basic discovery that this is an illegal monopolist. From there, the case could go as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Google has “concern about how these requirements will affect our customers and their privacy, and we carefully review the decision” Deputy President of the company Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement. The main Gail Antitrust’s Gail Slater hit the winning tone in the statement, but signaled that the Agency had yet to decide whether the appeal would receive more of his requested remedies. “The first Trump administration sued Google to return the competition for millions of Americans undergoing Google’s monopoly abuses. Today, the second Trump administration won the medicine to do so,” Slater said. “We will continue to review the opinion to consider the department options and the next steps in connection with asking for additional relief.”

Last year, Doy filed a long wish list To break Google in the online search market and claimed no one would be enough solutions to really unlock competition in space. His most beautiful proposals were in Google’s function, as a key access point for search engines, and requires that competitors will allow information about searching for enrollments to compete in search engines.

During the three-week trial remedies of this spring, Mehta heard Google General Manager and senior managers from Apple, Openai, Confusion and Traditional Search Competitors. Google claimed that Mehta should be closely transferred from certain provisions of the contract that the judge has determined that it was excluded and warned that governments are more excellent proposals jeopardize user privacyDisinerivize engine chromation products on an open source and unfairly forcing Google to share knowledge with competitors, it worked hard to earn. Owner Apple and Firefox Mozilla, for their parts, warned that they could become collateral damage If the judge has banned Google to pay them to search for the tasks to their services.

In his judgment of 230 pages, Mehta explained that although Google’s default status was “undoubtedly contributing to Google’s dominance in general pursuit”, forcing Google to sell it “badly suitable for this case.” Doy failed to prove that solutions less extremely than breaking would not be enough to restore competition, he wrote. In addition, he says, Doy has not proved a causal connection between monopoly strength and chrome defaults. “But more to the point, there would be nothing” natural “about chrome parties,” Mehta said. “It would be incredibly untidy and very risky.” This is because it is not working as “independent business” and relies heavily on the Google infrastructure, he wrote. Even if the other owner tried to take over, he wrote: “The court is highly skeptical that chrome-related disinvestment would not be damaged by significant product decomposition and loss of consumer welfare.”

Mehta also feared that in relation to Google’s salaries for searching distribution platforms, the negative effects that appeared over the ecosystems would be affected. Forbidding these types of payments like Apple and Mozilla, the default setting on their search engines and devices can theoretically “lead to many necessary thaws,” Mehta said, and even encourages the company like Apple to enter himself in the search market. But, he concluded such a legal risk that harms phone and browser manufacturers by denying them with significant income, while Google becomes money to keep your money and probably maintains most of its user base. Although he admitted that the Ban denial for payments was an imperfect solution, “because the” company already in a better position, as “companies are already in a better position, how they are” companies are already in a better position The “companies are already in better and technological, in order to” take a time during decades in decades, “and that they are Microsoft).

Rejudity of Google Banars from payment for default values ​​actually “intensified” the need to adopt a legal remedy that forces Google to share some of its search data with competitors, Mehta noticed. “Eligible competitors will have to compete with Google at the price to gain distribution. Thus, their competitive advantage will have to come from innovation and differ their search services from Google,” he wrote. To do this, searching competitors needs a scale that they have largely refused by Google’s search monopoly. Thus, Mehta agreed that qualified competitors are purchased in a marginal shot of various data on the different searches, which he will collect, which he will let these rivals will “identify and reduce more websites with precious content and make it more efficient.”

This medicine is far shy what the Laughter asked, however. Mehta only approved the narrow subsection of searches that the Laughter was demanding with rivals and agreed to force him to share it once, and not periodically for the latest data, “minimizes the risk of prosecutors and plaintiffs.” Mehta has similarly approved the SOJ’s proposal to seeking the recognition results for competitors, but narrowed the scope, to provide them with Google to appreciate them above marginal costs, and only requested only a request.

Duckduckgo Gabriel Veinberg, who testified as a search competitor on behalf of the government, said in a statement that Mehta verdict would not be effective. “Google will still be allowed to continue using its monopoly that will keep competitors, including in AI, consumers will continue to suffer,” he wrote. “We believe Congress should now enter Google to do what is most afraid of: competes at the level of the level playground.”

The American project of economic freedoms, groups that advocate stronger antitrustic implementation against the technical industry, slammed the Mehta verdict as an act of “cowardice”. “You’re not guilty to robbing the bank, then said it writes thank you for asking a robbery,” said the CEO of Nidhi Harde in the statement. “Similarly, you do not find Google responsible for monopolization, and then write a medicine that allows you to protect your monopoly. This fishing medicine in the latest case of monopolization has been a complete failure from its duty and must complain.”

Doy’s appeal was originally submitted in 2020. years, before generation and tools such as Openai, Chatggpt became available to the public. But by the time, the trial of legal remedies earlier this year, the role of AI would play in the future of an internet search became necessary for Mehta to catch. The government prayed to the judge to ensure the anticupile questions with Google search Do not simply shape in its AI offers.

Google’s empire faced a serious hit of several courts this year. At the end of July, California The Appeals Court confirmed the Jury’s verdict Against the company in the lawsuit of the epic game against its mobile application monopoly. Earlier this year, the Federal Judge in Virginia also found Google an illegally monopolized market for some advertising tools It offers, and will return to that court that in September discusses potential drugs for that case in September. Google is still in the middle of these fighting but are more likely to be the current form of a company will not last much longer.