Tuesday, a judge ruled that Google must share search results and some data with its rivals in a landmark antitrust case. This is all part of an effort to resolve Google’s monopoly in search. The Justice Department had asked for even more to be shared, but the order stopped short of the sweeping changes by not forcing the company to break itself up.

Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, issued the following statement in response:

“Judge Mehta’s ruling regarding remedies in the Google search distribution case avoided some of the most extreme measures requested by the Department of Justice, including breaking up the company by forcing it to sell off Chrome while still requiring certain data sharing and restrictions on payments in agreements around search engine placements. Not only would such a remedy have been beyond the scope of the behavior at issue, it would have also harmed consumers and impacted the competition in the browser engine market.

The months that have passed between the initial ruling and the remedies decision have shown how rapidly markets in the tech sector can change. This is particularly true in the present, given the disruptive nature of AI products in search. As Judge Mehta’s decision notes, such cases ask courts to predict the future of a rapidly changing market rather than merely look at historical facts, as it typically does, and that doing such is not a judge’s forte.

While there are still concerns regarding the underlying decision in this rapidly evolving market and other antitrust cases against tech companies are ongoing, perhaps courts will also consider the caution about their inability to predict the future and recognize that innovation often remains our best competition policy.”

If you’d like to speak with Huddleston, please reach out to pr@​cato.​org.

Related Articles