Google on Tuesday avoided a forced breakup of its online search monopoly after a federal judge rejected the harshest remedies proposed by the Justice Department — sparking furor from critics for the slap on the wrist in the landmark antitrust case.
US District Judge Amit Mehta said he would not require Google – which he had earlier dubbed a “monopolist” – to sell off its Chrome web browser or its Android operating system software, as the feds had requested.
“Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints,” Mehta wrote in his court order.
Instead, Mehta opted for a lighter touch in issuing his verdict in the trial’s remedy phase, which included three weeks of hearings in April. He ordered Google to share its search data with rivals to boost competition.
Google also can’t enter into exclusive deals for internet search, but it won’t be barred entirely from making payments to Apple, AT&T and other partners to ensure its search engine and other services are set as the default option on most smartphones, Mehta ruled.
“Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial—in some cases, crippling—downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban,” Mehta wrote.
The feds argued at trial that such deals were essential to maintaining Google’s monopoly.
Google’s stock surged more than 6% in after-hours trading following the ruling’s release around 4:30 p.m.
Apple stock also up nearly 4% in after-hours trading. Mehta’s ruling spares a $20 billion revenue stream for the struggling iPhone maker.
Matt Stoller, a prominent antitrust advocate and Google critic, described Mehta’s decision as a “big whiff” and “weak.”
“Mehta just decided that the court can let Google keep its monopoly,” he wrote on X.
Other Big Tech watchdogs also slammed Mehta over the head-scratching ruling.
“You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot,” said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
“Similarly, you don’t find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed.”
Hegde called on the DOJ to appeal the decision.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment following Mehta’s written ruling.
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, said Mehta “was far more willing to let Google continue bending the internet and our economy to its will than enforcing the law.”
Mehta did write that the court could revisit his decision if the remedies aren’t effective.
“For now, Google will be permitted to pay distributors for default placement. There are strong reasons not to jolt the system and to allow market forces to do the work.”
The ruling caps a five-year legal fight that had the potential to upend the internet and dismantle the core of Google’s business. It was considered the most consequential Big Tech antitrust case in decades.
Google had earlier vowed to appeal Mehta’s earlier ruling that it holds a monopoly.
Mehta’s ruling was largely in line with proposals made by the Big Tech giant, which had argued that any forced selloff of Chrome or Android would break them and could even threaten US national security.
