BURSTA federal judge on Tuesday largely sided with Google in the penalties phase of its search monopoly case, declining to order the breakup sought by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements to prioritize its search engine, browser or artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot after finding last year that the tech giant had maintained an illegal monopoly over online search.
However, he did not require Google to sell its Chrome browser, as the government had requested.
“The Chrome default undoubtedly contributes to Google’s dominance in general search,” Mehta wrote. However, he added, “the complete divestiture of Chrome is a poor fit for this case.”
The judge found that the DOJ failed to show its other proposed remedies would be ineffective without forcing Google to sell Chrome and went beyond the conduct it sought to address. He also suggested a breakup would be “incredibly messy and highly risky.”
Mehta did side with the government on some provisions, requiring Google to make certain search index and user interaction data and search syndication services available to competitors.
In a landmark ruling last August, Mehta determined Google violated antitrust laws by entering into exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browsers to ensure its search engine was the default.
It marked a significant win for the DOJ, as it prepared to take on several more high-profile cases against Big Tech firms, including a second against Google.
Google, for its part, has vowed to appeal the decision. But it first had to face the remedies process, which stretched out over a year, complete with another three weeks of arguments in court.
While it played a limited role in the initial case, AI came to be a central focus of the remedies phase, as the DOJ argued Google’s dominance over search gave it a leg up in the AI race and justified more forward-looking remedies like a breakup.
“Much has changed since the end of the liability trial, though some things have not,” Mehta wrote. “Google is still the dominant firm in the relevant product markets. No existing rival has wrested market share from Google. And no new competitor has entered the market.”
“But artificial intelligence technologies, particularly generative AI (‘GenAI’), may yet prove to be game changers,” he continued, adding, “The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case.”
Mehta’s decision marks a victory for Google after a tough year. The tech giant suffered another setback in April when a separate judge ruled it had illegally monopolized advertising technology.
The DOJ is also seeking a breakup in the ad tech case, asking the court to force Google to sell off two of its advertising products.
Updated at 5:04 p.m. EDT