
A little over a year ago, things looked fairly bleak for Google on the legal front (and on other fronts, but we’ll get to that later). In August of last year, Judge Amit Mehta of the federal court for the District of Columbia handed down a decision in the US government’s antitrust case against the search giant that could not have been more blunt: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” he ruled. This is the core tenet of modern antitrust law — not just the existence of a monopoly, but the employment of illegal methods in order to maintain that monopoly. In particular, Mehta ruled that the payments Google makes to Apple and other companies in return for being the default search engine in their browsers and on their devices — payments that totaled more than $20 billion dollars last year — were an unfair restraint on competition. So a slam-dunk decision in favor of competition, right? Google has to be broken up, has to sell off Chrome, has to stop paying Apple and others billions, etc. etc. Right? Well, no.
The judge’s definitive ruling certainly convinced some people that all of these remedies were both necessary and likely to occur, including Tim Wu — the Columbia Law professor (and former special assistant to Obama on competition policy) who came up with the term “net neutrality” back in the day. Wu wrote a piece for the New York Times that sounded like he was dancing on Google’s grave, and that the remedies listed above — selling off Chrome, dismantling the company’s search business, etc. — were almost a fait accompli (although he hedged his bets). But as it turns out, Mehta has done virtually none of those things in his decision on remedies, which came out late Tuesday. No forced sell-off of Chrome or Android. No end to the billion-dollar payments to Apple and others for search. No requirement to share real-time search-index data with competitors (although some sharing is required). Here’s how Bloomberg described it:
Alphabet Inc.’s Google will be required to share online search data with rivals while avoiding harsher penalties, including the forced sale of its Chrome business, a judge ruled in the biggest US antitrust case in almost three decades. Tuesday’s ruling represents a blow to the government, falling far short of the most severe remedies sought by antitrust enforcers after the court found Google illegally monopolized the search market. Judge Amit Mehta said he will bar Google from entering into exclusive contracts for distribution but would still allow the search giant to pay its partners — a key win for Apple Inc., which has received roughly $20 billion a year for making Google search the default on iPhones. The finding follows the Washington, DC, judge’s ruling last year that Google illegally monopolized the markets for online search and search advertising. Mehta held a three-week hearing in April to determine a fix.
Note: This is a version of my Torment Nexus newsletter, which I send out via Ghost, the open-source publishing platform. You can see other issues and sign up here.
Continue reading “The Google antitrust decision isn’t popular but it’s the right one”



















