After half a decennia that fights to keep its empire together, Google’s defenses are thin.
The company is confronted with a war with two fronts which could fundamentally reshape its business and supports the United States Ministry of Justice, to open up new opportunities for its competitors. Last year, a federal judge deemed Google an illegal monopoly on the online research market, and last week, another judge said that he also monopolized the advertising technology market. On Monday, he will face a new stage in this first battle: a three -week test in Washington, DC to determine the appropriate remedies to restore competition to online research.
Google has promised to call on the two decisions, but it cannot do it before its dissemination of appeal for each case, leaving the Doj plead for its rupture and other constraints. In court from Monday, the government will argue to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, to share research data with competitors, to keep the government aware of new AI investments and to end the exclusion agreements with browser and telephone manufacturers.
In this trial for upcoming ad-tech remedies, judges can see that less extreme measures can respond to the damages they believe that Google has inflicted. But it is still the greatest antitrust threat that a large technological company has faced in the United States for decades – since Microsoft’s historic loss against its monopoly on the PC operating system 25 years ago.
Outside the United States, Google has engaged fines for anticoncurable costs and had to provide business changes to comply with international regulations. But none of these elements has approached what the GM is asking for. If the Doj is making its way, Google and Apple could end one of the most lucrative partnerships in Silicon Valley, while rivals like Microsoft could have access to some of Google’s most precious data.
During the first phase of the American antitrust tests, known as the responsibility phase, Google was provocative by arguing that it has contributed fairly to win users with its superior products. In this next phase, Google will face judges who have already determined that this was not the case – and Google will be forced to plead to simply limit the penalties.
The DoJ believes that serious measures are necessary to eliminate the monopoly of Google’s search. The exclusion of Google with Apple, it has been argued, made extremely difficult for even quality competitors. Owning Chrome allows Google to control one of the main access points for search engines. And the popularity of Google Search means that users give it huge volumes of request data that competitors do not have.
The Doj also wishes to ensure that all the remedies imposed by the Court are the test of future, so Google cannot resume the power of monopoly later. This is why there is an accent on AI, which, in its concerns, could become a major research platform. The government fell from its request for Google to sell its investments in AI after President Donald Trump took office, but he still wants to force the government to inform the government of future investments in space.
The Doj wants to ensure that all the appeals imposed by the Court are the test of the court
The court will hear google leaders involved in its research, Android and Chrome, as well as leaders of online research competitors such as DuckDuckGo, Microsoft’s Bing and Yahoo. The leaders of the AI of companies like Openai and Perplexity will also weigh. The witnesses testified the last time to find out if Google had taken anti -competitive measures in a defined market; This time, the government will use them to explain why its proposed fixes are important – while Google will claim that they could break the tools that consumers appreciate.
The judge based in Virginia, Leonie Binkema, has not yet set trial dates for appeal procedures in the Ad Tech case. But in the coming months, the two parties will present their lists of wishes for changing the operation of the company.
These remedies will probably be simpler than those of research cases. Brinkema agreed with MJ’s arguments that Google monopolizes the markets via two illegal equality services: an advertising server of publisher called DFP and its AD Exchange Adx. (She agreed with Google on a count – that he had no monopoly on the market for his tools on the advertiser side.) The government could reasonably seek to make Google or both divide.
It might seem less dramatic than a chrome spin-off. But the advertising market that Google dominates underpinks large parts of the Internet economy – this is where publishers can earn money outside of major social networks. And these publishers said throughout the test that they are repressing Google’s whims. Make this ecosystem more competitive could revitalize the web open.
Mehta could govern by the end of the summer on research remedies. And Brinkema – which is in a court which is nicknamed the “Docket Rocket” for its relatively rapid pace – could also define a trial and make a decision this year. But Google could push tangible changes for years. The company promised to appeal decisions, a path that could take it to the Supreme Court. Trump’s DOJ could also decide to settle both cases, although since several states are also linked to prosecution, they could continue.
Microsoft’s big antitrust loss, famous, has not caused a break. While the administration of George W. Bush resumed the case in 2001, it was satisfied with softer remedies. Despite this, experts say that the landscape has opened up to new innovative companies. One of them says he is one of the greatest beneficiaries? Google.
