HyperAI

A U.S. federal judge has delivered a major ruling in the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, finding the company guilty of maintaining a monopoly in search and advertising but stopping short of forcing a breakup. Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google must end exclusive deals with partners like Apple to keep its search engine as the default on devices such as iPhones, but the company will not be required to divest its Chrome browser or Android operating system—key distribution tools that have fueled its dominance. This outcome represents a best-case scenario for Google, preserving its core infrastructure while imposing targeted restrictions. The decision allows Google to continue paying Apple and other partners for default search placement, as long as those agreements are non-exclusive. This means Apple can still accept payments from Google while also allowing competitors like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Perplexity to be included as search options on iPhones. This opens significant opportunities for AI rivals, which have struggled with distribution. The ruling also mandates that Google share certain search data—such as search index information and user-interaction patterns—with qualified competitors, potentially helping AI startups improve their offerings. For Google, the victory is substantial. The company avoided a forced divestiture of Chrome, which captures billions of user queries and fuels its advertising empire. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, saw its shares rise nearly 8% following the announcement. The company said it has concerns about user privacy and data sharing but welcomed the court’s rejection of more drastic remedies. Apple benefits from the ruling, as it can continue receiving roughly $20 billion annually from Google for default search placement—a major revenue stream. Analysts suggest the decision could pave the way for deeper AI collaboration between Apple and Google, including potential integration of Google’s Gemini AI into Apple devices. However, the ruling has drawn sharp criticism from consumer advocates, publishers, and tech watchdogs. Critics argue the remedies don’t go far enough to curb Google’s power. Senator Amy Klobuchar called it a missed opportunity to enforce meaningful change, urging Congress to pass the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. News/Media Alliance CEO Danielle Coffey expressed disappointment, noting the lack of an “opt-out” provision for publishers whose content is used in Google’s AI systems without compensation. Publishers fear the data-sharing requirement may accelerate the shift to AI-driven “zero-click” search, where users get answers directly from chatbots without visiting websites—reducing traffic and ad revenue. Adtech experts warn this could deepen the marginalization of content creators. Meanwhile, the ad industry remains heavily dependent on Google. Despite the ruling, Google is still projected to hold a 25.5% share of the U.S. digital ad market, with most revenue coming from search ads. While the data-sharing clause could help rivals, analysts believe Google’s scale and integration make it difficult to displace. A separate antitrust case involving Google’s adtech business is ongoing, with potential remedies including a breakup of its adtech operations. That case could reshape the $48 billion open web display ad market, benefiting rivals like The Trade Desk and OpenX. In sum, Judge Mehta’s decision strikes a balance—holding Google accountable while preserving its core platforms. It sets a precedent for how courts may handle Big Tech monopolies in the age of AI, but many believe it falls short of restoring true competition. Google plans to appeal the initial finding of monopoly, and the legal battle is expected to continue for years.

Related Links