Source: Ars Technica
Article note: It's a weird situation.
On one hand, we've basically determined that yes, they're abusing a monopoly, and no, we won't be imposing any meaningful penalties.
On the other hand, there are very few entities that could end up with Chrome (or Android) without doing something even more harmful, and the search bundling payouts are what's keeping Firefox (as the only serious competitor in one of the spaces) afloat, and so on.
...Boy we've allowed some structurally abusive shit to get deeply rooted, and it's pretty clear via the various open-washing and deals between large players that much of it was planned/intended/done with careful legal consideration.
Google has avoided the worst-case scenario in the pivotal search antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice. More than a year ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a major victory when Google was found to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The remedy phase took place earlier this year, with the DOJ calling for Google to divest the market-leading Chrome browser, release data to competitors, and end many of its search distribution deals.
The government is getting almost none of that. DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google doesn't have to give up the Chrome browser to mitigate its illegal monopoly in online search. The court will only require a handful of modest data and behavioral remedies, forcing Google to release some search data to competitors and limit its ability to make exclusive distribution deals.
Chrome remains with Google
This case drew many comparisons to the decades-old antitrust case against Microsoft, which nearly saw the company split in two. The company narrowly avoided that fate, and it seems Google will as well—the DOJ came up short on the so-called structural remedies. While there will be some changes to search distribution, the court didn't believe that a breakup was fair in this situation.
Read full article
Comments
