A federal court has declined to order the breakup of Google, rejecting the most severe penalties sought by antitrust regulators and drawing sharp criticism from those who argue the decision fails to curb the company’s overwhelming market power.
The ruling spares Google from being forced to divest its Chrome browser and Android operating system. Instead, the court has mandated that the company share certain search data with competitors and cease entering into specific types of exclusive distribution agreements. The decision was immediately met with a surge in the stock price of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.
Critics of the tech behemoth condemned the outcome as a “slap on the wrist,” arguing that the measures are insufficient to dismantle an illegal monopoly that has stifled competition for over a decade. They contend that allowing Google to retain control of key platforms like Chrome and Android perpetuates its dominance.
“The court found Google guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly, yet the remedy does little to restore competitive balance,” said one industry analyst. “It signals to other dominant firms that the consequences for anti-competitive behavior are minimal.”
Conversely, the technology industry and its investors welcomed the ruling, expressing relief that the court avoided what they termed “draconian” structural changes. Industry groups argued that forcing a breakup would have disrupted the digital ecosystem and harmed developers and consumers.
In its defense, the court noted the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, particularly the rise of artificial intelligence, which it suggested could provide new, viable competitors to Google’s services in the near future. The judge expressed hope that these market shifts would naturally encourage more competition.
The US Department of Justice described the imposed remedies as “significant” and a step toward opening a market long frozen by a single company’s control. However, free market advocates and some lawmakers have called for an appeal, insisting that the ruling falls short of what is needed to ensure fair competition.
The decision also has positive implications for Apple, which maintains a lucrative partnership with Google to set its search engine as the default on iPhones and iPads. The court’s order is expected to force an annual renegotiation of this multi-billion-dollar agreement.
A separate hearing on Google’s dominance in the online advertising technology sector is scheduled for later this year.
