The remedies ruling in the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google finally landed on Tuesday. Last year, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google was a monopolist in the search and advertising markets, but while today’s ruling says that Google will have to share some search data with competitors, Google doesn’t have to spin off Chrome and it can keep paying for deals like the one that lets it be the default search in Safari.
Many Google critics aren’t happy with the remedies that have been handed down, saying that they don’t go far enough to slow Google’s dominance and restore competition in the market. Here are some statements from critics:
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):
Today’s ruling is a reminder of Google’s sweeping power over the online economy, but the limited remedies ordered by the court demonstrate why we need additional rules of the road for Big Tech. That’s why we must pass my bipartisan American Innovation and Choice Online Act to stop dominant platforms like Google from continuing to unfairly preference their own products over competitors’ — which hurts consumers and entrepreneurs, and stifles innovation. Through three administrations, our antitrust enforcers have proven that Google’s tactics endanger the future of a free and open internet and risk choking off innovation in critical areas like artificial intelligence. I will continue to work across the aisle to ensure even the most powerful tech companies have to play by the rules.
DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg:
We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google’s illegal behavior. Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer. We believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field.
News / Media Alliance president and CEO Danielle Coffey:
We are disappointed in today’s decision. Judge Mehta’s ruling did not address the ability of Google to further cement its market power through its AI offerings. Google is forcing content creators to give away their content to be used in its AI offerings in order to remain in Google Search. This is a no-win scenario that will continue to harm publishers that invest in high-quality, journalistic and creative content. Giving publishers the ability to opt out of Google’s AI is critical to preserving an open internet free from anti-competitive behavior, and preserving a fair playing field for companies across a variety of industries. This ruling is not the end, but it is a missed opportunity.
The Tech Oversight Project executive director Sacha Haworth:
While Judge Amit Mehta’s decision blocks some of Google’s predatory practices, it fails to meet this historic moment and shows that his decision was made based on speculative arguments about generative AI, in which Google, because of its interlocking monopolies and distribution advantage, is already a dominant player. Search is one of the largest avenues for future AI queries, and it’s crystal clear that rather than doing the hard thing, Judge Mehta was far more willing to let Google continue bending the internet and our economy to its will than enforcing the law, which is designed to create a level playing field that benefits the American people and innovative, new companies.
American Economic Liberties Project executive director Nidhi Hegde:
The Court found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era, yet has bizarrely decided to leave its power almost fully intact. Imposing liability in name only is pure judicial cowardice. This ruling leaves the public unprotected, crucial and evolving markets concentrated, and worse, sends a signal that will embolden monopolists everywhere.
Not everyone is fully opposed, with some speaking in favor of Judge Mehta not breaking up Google. However, some have also expressed concerns over the data-sharing portion of the remedies.
Computer & Communications Industry Association president and CEO Matt Schruers:
The District Court’s ruling rightly rejected the drastic breakup proposed by the DOJ regarding Chrome and Android, which would have altered antitrust precedent and harmed competition and consumers. As the Court stated, the DOJ overreached in seeking the forced divestiture of these key assets. For consumers, the ruling means that Google will be compelled to share search queries and other data with certain competitors, which could significantly impact privacy and national security.
Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Technology and Innovation director Jessica Melugin:
Today’s ruling in the Google search case wisely avoids most of the requests from the Department of Justice, including a forced divestiture of Chrome and Android, overly broad payment bans, and other requested overreaches. But the mandated data sharing introduces questions about who might qualify as a ‘qualified competitor’ and if that benefits consumers, or just Google competitors.
NetChoice vice president of public affairs Robert Winterton:
The court’s nuanced approach has prevented the DOJ from dismantling a leading American tech company at a pivotal time in history, ensuring President Trump’s administration stays true to its promise to empower American innovation.
Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevic:
Google’s rivals wanted Judge Mehta to throw the book at Google, but he repeatedly cited the Microsoft antitrust precedent that remedies should be narrowly tailored to fit the offense. He spent 29 pages discussing how generative AI is now a competitive threat to traditional search engines. Innovation is a hare while antitrust law is a tortoise.
Google plans to appeal the first ruling that found the company was an illegal monopolist.