Judge rules in Google’s illegal search monopoly case: it can keep Chrome

Google will not have to sell its Chrome browser in order to address its illegal monopoly on online research, a provincial court judge in the capital, Amit Mihata, on Tuesday. More than a year ago, Judge Mihita found that the research giant had violated the Sherman Anti -monopoly law; His rule now determines what Google should do in response.

Mehta refused to give some of the most ambitious proposals from the Ministry of Justice to treat Google’s behavior and restore competition to the market. In addition to allowing Google to keep Chrome, the company will also be allowed to follow up on distribution partners for pre -download or set search products or AI. But it is an order from Google with the participation of some valuable research information with competitors that can help start their ability to compete, and to ban the search giant from the contract of exclusive deals to distribute the search products or AI Assistant berdes in ways that may cut the distribution to the competitors.

It is the most important way to combat monopoly that has been governing the technology giant about 25 years ago, since the issue of the Ministry of Justice against Microsoft. Although he represents a major teacher in the case, Google can still be actually required to implement these solutions – if any. Now that Mihat has issued his remedies, Google can finally chase his basic discovery as illegal monopolistic. From there, the case can go to the Supreme Court.

“Fears about how these requirements affect our users and their privacy, and we are closely reviewing the decision.” Gail Slater, head of the Ministry of Justice, struck a victorious tone in a statement, but indicated that the agency has not yet decided whether it would decide to obtain more required treatments. “The Trump administration filed a law against Google to regain competition for millions of Americans who were subjected to Google’s monopolistic violations. Today, the Trump administration won the treatment of a treatment to do so.” “We will continue to review the opinion to consider management options and the following steps regarding the pursuit of additional relief.”

Last year, the Ministry of Justice has provided a long wish list to break the Gogle grip around the online search market, and he argued that there is no single solution that would be sufficient to completely cancel the competition lock in the area. Its most amazing proposals included Google to sell its Chrome browser, which it considers a major access point for search engines where Google can give priority to herself, and requires him to allow competitors to purchase inquiries about search and signals to feed their search engines in order to compete with competition.

For three weeks, Mihata heard by Google CEO and high -level CEO of Apple, Openai, Perplexity and Tradition Search. Google has argued that Mihata should only prevent her from the provisions of some of the judgments that the judge found it excluded, and warned that the most amazing government’s proposals could endanger the user’s privacy, and to finance the lack of nullification of the open browser engine. Apple and Firefox Mozilla, to their parts, warned that it may become side effects if the Google judge prevents it to make its search engine virtual on their services.

In his 230 -page rule, Mihata explained that although Google’s virtual case as a search engine on Chrome “there is no doubt that” Google’s dominance on public search “, forcing Google to sell it in the end” a bad seizure of this issue. The reason for its monopoly and the backwardness. Calculate the deterioration of large products and the loss of consumer care.

Mehta also feared that Google’s batches to the search platforms search for negative effects are rippled across the ecosystem. Mihata said that banning these types of payments for companies such as Apple and Mozilla to get their virtual position on their browsers and devices, can “stir melting melting that affects the need”, and even encouraging a company like Apple to enter the search market itself. But he concluded that he granted such a remedy the risks that damage the phone and browsers by depriving them of great revenues, while Google gets its money while probably kept from the base of its users. Although he acknowledged that the refusal of banning payments is a minus solution, but “allowing Google to continue paying payments is now more acceptable than when the stage of responsibility has ended,” given that a boom in financing projects for the IQ projects of obstetric intelligence means that “companies are already in a better position, technically and technically, technically, technically, any traditional search company (with some exception,

Mihata pointed out that the refusal to prevent Google from paying the price of the virtual settings “increase” in fact is the need to adopt a treatment that forces Google to share some search data with competitors. “Qualified competitors will have to continue to compete with Google for the price to gain distribution. Therefore, a competitive feature of innovation and the distinction of Google search services must come.” To do this, the search competitors need a scale that has been largely rejected by the Google search monopoly. So Mihata agreed to allow qualified competitors to buy at a single -time shot cost for a variety of search data collected by Google, which he says will allow these competitors to “identify and crawl more web pages with valuable content and do so more efficiently.”

This treatment is much shy about what the Ministry of Justice requested. Mahata only granted a narrow sub -group of research data that the Ministry of Justice wanted to share Google with competitors, only agreed to force Google to share it once, instead periodically for fresh data, which says, “reduces the risk of free passes that experts in Google and admitted by the plaintiffs.” Mihita has similarly granted the Ministry of Justice’s proposal to demand Google for the results of the search results for the competitors, but it narrowed the range, and allowed Google to pricing it over the marginal cost, and the requirements only made the past five years, instead of the ten government that it requested.

The CEO of Duckduckgo Gabriel Weinberg, who witnessed as a research competitor on behalf of the government, said in a statement that the rule of Mihita will not be effective. He wrote: “Google will be allowed to continue to use a monopoly for competitors, including in researching artificial intelligence. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer.” ))

The American Economic Freedoms project, a group that defended the enforcement of the strongest monopoly against the technology industry, criticized the rule of Miha as a “cowardice” work. “You do not find a guilty person to steal a bank and then a penalty for him to write a note of thanks for the stolen goods,” CEO Nadihai Higdy said in a statement. “Likewise, you do not find Google responsible for monopoly, then you write a treatment that allows him to protect his monopoly. This pure remedy to the most ambitious cases in the monopoly of the past quarter is a complete failure of his duty and must be upset.”

The complaint of the Ministry of Justice was originally filed in 2020, before it became artificial intelligence tools such as Openai’s Chatgpt available to the public. But by the time the trial of treatments occurred earlier this year, the role that artificial intelligence in the future of searching on the Internet would have become necessary for the talent. The government has called on the judge to ensure that anti -competition problems with Google’s research work do not simply move to artificial intelligence shows.

The Google Empire faced serious strikes from multiple courts this year. In late July, the California Court of Appeal upheld a jury against the company in a lawsuit against Epic Games against the mobile app store. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Virginia found that Google had illegally monopolized the market for some advertising technology tools it provides, and will return to that court to argue the potential treatments for this case in September. Google is still in the middle of these battles, but it looks more and more that the current model of the company will not last longer.