A little over a year ago, DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google is a monopolist and violated US antitrust law. Today, Mehta ruled that while Google violated the law, there won’t be any punishment for the search giant. They don’t have to divest Chrome or Android, they can keep paying third parties to preload their services and products, and they can keep paying Apple €20 billion a year to be the default search engine on iOS.
Mehta declined to grant some of the more ambitious proposals from the Justice Department to remedy Google’s behavior and restore competition to the market. Besides letting Google keep Chrome, he’ll also let the company continue to pay distribution partners for preloading or placement of its search or AI products. But he did order Google to share some valuable search information with rivals that could help jumpstart their ability to compete, and bar the search giant from making exclusive deals to distribute its search or AI assistant products in ways that might cut off distribution for rivals.
↫ Lauren Feiner at The Verge
Mehta granted Google a massive win here, further underlining that as long as you’re wealthy, a corporation, or better yet, both, you are free to break the law and engage in criminal behaviour. The only thing you’ll get is some mild negative press and a gentle pat on the wrist, and you can be on your merry way to continue your illegal behaviour. None of it is surprising, except perhaps for the brazenness of the class justice on display here.
The events during and course of this antitrust case mirrors those of the antitrust case involving Microsoft, over 25 years ago. Microsoft, too, had a long, documented, and proven history of illegal behaviour, but like Google today, also got away with a similar gentle pat on the wrist. It’s likely that the antitrust cases currently running against Apple and Amazon will end in similar gentle pats on the wrist, further solidifying that you can break the law all you want, as long as you’re rich.
Thank god the real criminal scum is behind bars.
It doesn’t have to do with class as much as the current US administration seeing US tech giants as strategic.
Welcome to the era of tech and geopolitics being intertwined: It’s the same reason Taiwan will not let TSMC build a cutting-edge factory outside Taiwan (so the US has to protect them), why export controls and export sanctions are used as a geopolitical tool, and why the current US administration tries to force the EU to repeal the DSA (which is a law I don’t personally like, but the US should have no say over it).
The entire “data is the new oil” seems to take shape.
The big loser in this is users… but also Android and Chrome. Free and independent, they could evolve in some interesting ways. That is not to discredit the folks writing code for and developing those two products, but they both seem like vehicles essentially for ad revenue at this point.
Free and independent? How so? A new owner is free to do with Android what they want. They could even take Android fully proprietary, except the Linux kernel. Google dropping code as AOSP is a courtesy, not an obligation. Technically they only need to release the copyleft bits to licensees.
The companies who would be large enough to buy Android, are also the companies that mostly have the same interests as Google to have a vehicle for eyeballs. Microsoft, Meta, Amazon etc. would probably plug Android into their own ad business and pick up where Google left off, possibly sans AOSP.
I am not saying that it’s a good thing that Android keeps being Google’s plaything. I just don’t see any potential new owner being any better than Google when it comes to the (ab)use of Android.
r_a_trip,
You focus on source code, which is part of the problem, but there are a number of other problems especially for the web and mobile. Consider how google were trying to push DRM into web browsers and is actively pushing adblocker restrictions in chrome. And google’s plan to officially kill off android sideloading is very bad too (google PR have been pushing bad faith arguments over why google new control doesn’t harm sideloader freedoms even though it clearly does).
I agree, the sale of these assets to another giant in the oligopoly class would be just as problematic and wouldn’t solve the core antitrust issues. It would be far more ideal in terms of antitrust if it could be independently owned, like NathanJHill said, but that’s hard to do especially when software like chrome has typically been distributed for free.
Independently owned by whom? That is where I draw a blank. Google will valuate Android by a few billion and which company is rich enough, interested enough and, above all, has healthy business plans with Android, to be a good buyer for phone manufacturers and users alike?
Android by its design is an eyeball vehicle for ad pushing. (For those who do not know how to block it.) A new owner will want to see a return on investment and with Android there are two options. Send the bill to the phone manufacturers or send it to the phone users. If to the users, then it is either subscriptions out the wazoo for services rendered or more ad pushing.
r_a_trip,
It would probably need to go up for action to really know it’s market worth.
I wouldn’t say this of android itself, more so of google play and some applications. No doubt android gives google tremendous bundling benefits.
I agree, funding is always going to be a big question. Whether we like it or not, advertising seems to have beaten most other business models. We need to remember though that the purpose of antitrust isn’t necessarily to to change the business model, just to make sure that the entire market doesn’t fall to too few hands. Our regulators have down a lousy job of it.
Well, at least users will have the same level of support for security bugs. I was worried that I would have to switch to Safari.
With USA struggling to keep up with China, no way the government will lay a single finger any of the big 5 tech companies. Their are pretty much the only thing going on for USA right now.
And these companies know that, and they will screw us all. With sand.
If I understand correctly, the biggest winner here is Mozilla. Their rot, and Firefox’s decline, will continue. But it’s a progressive kind of rot, so shh about it.
The Android sideloading ban came a bit too late to be potentially considered in this ruling.
The rich are not bound by the law. News at 11. Throughout history the elites have gotten away with bloody murder all the time. As long as the excesses aren’t beyond comprehension, no revolt will take place.
I’m not surprised by the weak outcome of the Google case. Google gives the US power. Why would anyone in the US want to diminish that advantage? MAAMA is what keeps the US on the map, technologically speaking.