A federal judge ruled that Google must share certain kinds of data with competitors and is prohibited from entering into exclusive distribution deals — orders aimed at ameliorating its monopoly power in internet search — but rejected the U.S. government’s proposal to force Google to sell its popular Chrome browser.
In a statement, Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in part, “We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely.”
Related Stories
The Justice Department had sought to force Google to divest Chrome as one of several proposed remedies after the company in August 2024 lost the U.S. government’s antitrust case charging it with a monopoly on search. A federal court ruled that Google was a monopoly and acted illegally by inking multibillion-dollar deals to make its search engine the default on web browsers and smartphones including devices from Apple and Samsung. Google has previously said it would appeal the August 2024 ruling.
Popular on Variety
In the Sept. 2 ruling, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia detailed a list of remedies, which he said would be in effect for a six-year term. A copy of the decision is available at this link.
Per the decision, “Google will have to make available to Qualified Competitors certain search index and user-interaction data, though not ads data, as such sharing will deny Google the fruits of its exclusionary acts and promote competition.” In addition, the ruling requires Google “to publicly disclose material changes it makes to its ad auctions to promote greater transparency in search text ads pricing and to prevent Google from increasing prices by secretly fine-tuning its ad auctions.”
Furthermore, Google is barred from entering or maintaining any exclusive contract relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and the Gemini app, according to Mehta’s ruling.
But the judge rejected government prosecutors’ other proposed remedies to Google’s anticompetitive behavior.
Among the biggest of these: 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,” Mehta wrote in the decision. The judge said the U.S. government “overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.”
According to Google’s Mulholland, a requirement for the company to divest Chrome or Android “would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution, and would have harmed consumers and our partners.”
Other top-line determinations from the ruling:
- Google will not be barred from making payments or offering other consideration to distribution partners for preloading or placement of Google Search, Chrome, or its GenAI products. Mehta wrote that “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.”
- Google will not have to present users with “choice screens” on its products or encourage its Android distribution partners to do the same.
- Google will not be required to share granular, query-level data with advertisers or provide them with more access to such data.
- Google will not have to underwrite a nationwide public education campaign, a proposed remedy that “does not fit Google’s violations and its terms are too indefinite,” according to Mehta’s decision.
- Google will not have to modify its policies to offer website publishers “more choice” in how the search giant uses their content, nor will it be subject to an investment reporting requirement; Mehta said both of these proposals were unrelated to Google’s anticompetitive conduct.
Mehta’s ruling said that the two sides “shall meet and confer and, by September 10, 2025, submit a revised final judgment that is consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.”
Google’s Mulholland, in her statement, said, “Today’s recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information. This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want. That’s why we disagree so strongly with the Court’s initial decision in August 2024 on liability.”