Google has avoided the worst-case scenario in the pivotal search antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice. DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google doesn't have to give up the Chrome browser to mitigate its illegal monopoly in online search. The court will only require a handful of modest behavioral remedies, forcing Google to release some search data to competitors and limit its ability to make exclusive distribution deals.

More than a year ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a major victory when Google was found to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The remedy phase took place earlier this year, with the DOJ calling for Google to divest the market-leading Chrome browser. That was the most notable element of the government's proposed remedies, but it also wanted to explore a spin-off of Android, force Google to share search technology, and severely limit the distribution deals Google is permitted to sign.

Mehta has decided on a much narrower set of remedies. While there will be some changes to search distribution, Google gets to hold onto Chrome. The government contended that Google's dominance in Chrome was key to its search lock-in, but Google claimed no other company could hope to operate Chrome and Chromium like it does. Mehta has decided that Google's use of Chrome as a vehicle for search is not illegal in itself, though. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture (sic) of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints," the ruling reads.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
13 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 95 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There wasn't even a slap on the wrist in that ruling.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    Waiting for the Onion article "Google won't have to sell judge"

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    Pushing far-right influencers on YouTube finally paid off to them...

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I never thought forcing Google to sell Chrome was a good idea. Most of the companies lining up to buy it were AI companies flushed with private equity money. Does anyone really think those companies would do a better job at protecting user privacy and avoiding monopolistic practices?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    While I agree with you, I wished that Mehta would entertain the idea of spinning Chrome into an independent company, even though it is still unclear to me how a browser company can generate revenue, especially to pay the salaries of the army of engineers working on Blink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    judge rules drools

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    crime is legal anyway

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/google@lemdro.id view that post
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The court has basically ruled to accept the terms proposed by Google itself. That's surely the normal thing to do and doesn't sound like corruption in the least.

    I think that always happens. The court usually also gives the murder suspect the sentence that they want.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    This reminds me of abusive parents in Reddit real stories, whom inferior child got hurt by the golden child , then they make execuses for the golden one

  • source