"Publishers and competitors have been calling to break up Google for decades. It's too powerful, the argument goes, combining dominance in search, web browsing, ad selling, maps, email, video, mobile operating systems, and more. It uses its power in one segment to buttress others, stifling competition and taking too large a share of the economic pie. It's a strong argument!"
"Instead, Mehta ruled that the company can keep Chrome and would only be banned from buying exclusive search rights to platforms. In other words, Google can't pay billions to be the only search engine on Safari - but it can keep paying billions to be the default search engine on Safari. (Mehta also said Google would have to share some of its search data with other platforms to make it easier for them to compete.)"
"While Judge Amit Mehta's decision blocks some of Google's predatory practices, it fails to meet this historic moment...it's crystal clear that rather than doing the hard thing, Judge Mehta was far more willing to let Google continue bending the internet and our economy to its will than enforcing the law, which is designed to create a level playing field that benefits the American people"
Publishers and competitors have long sought to break up Google because of dominance across search, browsing, ads, maps, email, video, and mobile operating systems. A federal judge found Google to be a monopolist and considered remedies to address its market power. The court banned exclusive paid search agreements with platforms but permitted Google to retain the Chrome browser and to pay for default search placements. The ruling also requires Google to share some search data with other platforms to aid competition. Critics argue the remedy is insufficient and leaves Google's structural advantages largely intact, preserving its influence over the internet and economy.
Read at Nieman Lab
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]