US EditionJudge Rules Google Can Retain Chrome but Must End Exclusive Search Deals and Share Data
The judge barred Google from exclusive contracts and mandated sharing search data with rivals to promote competition amid AI-driven market changes, while allowing Chrome retention.
- A judge ruled that Google must stop exclusive search deals but can retain its Chrome browser, as part of a significant antitrust case against the company.
- Judge Amit Mehta determined that Google must share certain user data with competitors to restore competition instead of forcing a breakup.
- The ruling maintains Google's annual $20 billion payment to Apple for default search engine placement on devices, despite the antitrust scrutiny.
- Google shares rose over 6% after the decision, signaling investor confidence despite ongoing regulatory pressures.
190 Articles
190 Articles
Six questions about Google: Google doesn't have to sell off any assets to break its illegal monopoly, a US federal judge ruled. Will the…
Judge Mehta’s Google Antitrust Remedies: Threading The Needle Between Overkill And Underkill
Last summer, when Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had violated antitrust laws through its search distribution agreements, I was left wondering what the hell any reasonable remedy would look like. The case always struck me as weird—Google was paying billions to Apple and Mozilla to be the default search engine because users actually wanted…
In the future, Google will have to share some of its search engine data with the competition, a US court ruled in the monopoly process against the Internet company. Sharing data will help competing search engine operators to develop their products.
Judge orders limits on Google search monopoly
KEY TAKEAWAYS: Judge rules Google held illegal search monopoly Google barred from exclusive contracts on key services Competitors granted access to some Google search data DOJ sought breakup but Chrome divestiture rejected A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a shake-up of Google’s search engine in an attempt to curb the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly while rebuffing the U.S. government’s attempt to break up the company and impose ot…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 45% of the sources are Center
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
