Judge curbs Google search monopoly
Ruling blocks default deals and orders data sharing with rivals
A U.S. judge ordered Google to share specific anonymized search datasets with rivals and barred the company from entering or renewing exclusive default‑search agreements on devices and browsers, while rejecting prosecutors’ request to force divestiture of Chrome. The ruling stems from a long‑running Justice Department lawsuit that concluded Google unlawfully maintained monopoly power in search through default placements, tying arrangements and control of valuable user data.
Judge Amit Mehta favored targeted behavioral remedies over structural breakup. In addition to banning new or renewed exclusive defaults, the order requires Google to provide defined search logs and click data to qualified rivals under privacy‑safeguarding protocols, and establishes oversight measures to monitor compliance. The court found divesting Chrome or Android would be excessively disruptive and disproportionate to the harms identified.
Google said it strongly disagrees and will appeal, arguing compelled data sharing risks user privacy, security, intellectual property and could enable competitors to reverse engineer its systems. The appeals process could delay any changes for years. The decision comes as Google faces separate legal challenges over its app store and online advertising operations.
Market reaction was mixed: investors were relieved the company avoided a breakup, but competition advocates welcomed remedies aimed at opening the market. Experts caution that mandated data access, while significant, may not swiftly dethrone Google given its entrenched distribution channels, global scale and integrated services; rivals will still need to translate technical improvements into user adoption. The ruling sets a key precedent in digital antitrust enforcement by prioritizing conduct remedies that open data and distribution while avoiding disruptive structural separations, and is likely to influence future cases over platform domination, data access and the balance between competition and privacy.
