The tech giant, which a judge ruled last year to have illegally monopolized the search market, can no longer enter into exclusive agreements that prioritize its products and must share some of its data with competitors.
While antitrust advocates have dismissed this approach as inadequate, it may still give search rivals an opening, experts said.
“There’s been a tendency to underestimate the impact of conduct-oriented remedies and to think that the only worthy solution is the big bang of a breakup,” said William Kovacic, a George Washington University law professor and former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Tuesday that Google would be allowed to hold onto Chrome, rejecting many of the remedies proposed by the DOJ.
The decision marked a much-needed win for the tech giant, which lost two antitrust cases in the past year. Following the search decision, another federal judge also found that Google had an illegal monopoly over advertising technology.
Mehta’s ruling was cheered by many in and around the tech industry, with longtime tech analyst Dan Ives calling it a “monster win” for both Google and Apple, as the decision appears to permit the iPhone maker to retain its multibillion-dollar deal to make Google Search the default on Safari.
Meanwhile, antitrust advocates lamented that it amounted to a “slap on the wrist,” allowing Google to effectively maintain its monopoly over search. But Kovacic cautioned both ends of the spectrum from getting ahead of themselves.
“That strikes me as mourning and celebrating way too early,” he told The Hill.
Check out the full report at TheHill.com.
