Several industry leaders reacted to a US judge’s decision not to force Google to divest Chrome or Android, avoiding a historic breakup for the tech giant, while questioning whether the ruling will curb Google’s dominance in search and advertising.
Arielle Garcia, chief operating officer at Check My Ads Institute, called it "sorely disappointing" and argued that the ruling fails to address the lack of viable competitors to Google’s search quality.
A sorely disappointing day all around in Google antitrust land. Speaking of choice for users, I wonder how long it takes for Google to revive the 3PC ‘informed choice’ experience now that they’re more confident they’ll keep Chrome,” Garcia wrote on LinkedIn.
US District Judge Amit Mehta rejected the Department of Justice’s request to break up Google, which had argued that the company maintained a monopoly through exclusionary contracts and control of Chrome and Android. Instead of divestiture, Mehta imposed behavioural remedies, banning Google from entering exclusive search agreements and requiring the company to share search data with competitors.
Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment,” the decision stated. “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.
Mehta oversaw the remedies trial in May this year and ordered the parties to meet by September 10 for the final judgment. Google said on its blog that it plans to comply, while voicing concerns over user privacy and the practical impact of the order.
Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals,” Google said in a blog post. “We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely. The Court did recognise that divesting Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution, and would have harmed consumers and our partners.
Ian Whittaker, managing director of Liberty Sky Advisors and columnist for Campaign, compared the case to past monopolies and observed that the historical precedent makes sense of the recent ruling.
Whittaker wrote on LinkedIn: “The rationale for this was clear: both advertisers and consumers benefited from having just one source of information. Now, it could be argued that today’s situation is different, particularly around the technology. However, that is not clear yet and also types of consumer behaviours don’t tend to change over much over time. So, the decision makes sense.”
Meanwhile, Tomaso Duso, chairman of the German Monopolies Commission, believes that the decision is a clear win for Google but remains a weak show of enforcement against anti-competitive practices.
“Instead of structural changes, we are left with behavioural commitments that require Google to share its data and algorithms. While these measures are better than nothing, past experience shows how difficult they are to monitor and enforce. Only time will tell if U.S. enforcers can succeed where Europe has often struggled. The outlook is not promising,” he said on LinkedIn.
Hannah Storey, advocacy and policy advisor on technology and human rights at Amnesty International, emphasised that the ruling harms consumers while continuing to protect big tech’s growing influence in the digital sphere in the age of AI.
“This isn’t the only opportunity for change. In the upcoming decision on Google’s advertising technology, regulators must consider a structural break-up that accounts for human rights,” she wrote on LinkedIn, adding that “market dominance is not just an economic issue” and calls for governments to break up monopolies and rights-threatening mergers.
The ruling follows the continuing landmark ad monopoly case against Google. In August 2024, Mehta ruled that Google had illegally maintained its monopoly by controlling 90% of the US search market. Google said it plans to appeal the antitrust case.
