A wave of government antitrust suits targeting US technology giants \u2013 Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta \u2013 spans different markets and makes different allegations of monopolistic misconduct. But the outcomes will determine the rules of competitive conduct in the modern digital economy, where the Internet, data and increasingly artificial intelligence shape markets and corporate behaviour.<\/p>\n
A federal judge\u2019s ruling on Sept 2 on what steps Google must take to fix its monopoly in online search delivered the first clear answer: You will be restrained, but not broken up or forced to fundamentally change your business practices.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor the Big Tech firms, this ruling is a relief,\u201d said David Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School.<\/p>\n
Tuesday\u2019s decision by Judge Amit P. Mehta \u2013 the first major remedies ruling of the modern Internet era \u2013 signals how the courts may approach reshaping antitrust law after a flurry of activity under the Trump and Biden administrations to rein in the growing power of a handful of influential tech companies.<\/p>\n
The decision, handed down in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, will force Google to share some search data with its competitors and put some restrictions on payments that the company uses to ensure its search engine gets prime placement in web browsers and on smartphones. But it fell far short of government requests to force it to sell its popular Chrome browser and share far more valuable data.<\/p>\n
It was a measured approach that signaled judicial reluctance to intervene too deeply in fast-changing, high-tech markets.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a cautious ruling,\u201d said William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and a former chair of the Federal Trade Commission. \u201cJudge Mehta was not persuaded that the more drastic sanctions proposed by the government were warranted or appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mehta pointed to recent rapid advances in AI that are already shaking up the way people search for information as contributing to his caution. In a typical antitrust case, the court is asked to resolve a dispute based on facts of the past, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cHere the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future,\u201d Mehta wrote. \u201cNot exactly a judge\u2019s forte.\u201d<\/p>\n
Google had said it planned to appeal the original decision, which could prompt a lengthy court battle that could well end up in the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
In a statement Tuesday, Google said it had concerns about how the data-sharing requirements could affect the privacy of its users. But the company praised Mehta\u2019s finding that AI had altered the landscape and said the ruling underlined the company\u2019s stance that competition remains intense.<\/p>\n
But if Mehta\u2019s work stands up on appeal \u2013 which antitrust experts said was probable \u2013 it will influence other judges who are weighing how to handle monopoly cases in their courtrooms.<\/p>\n
This month, a federal judge in Virginia is set to hear arguments over how to fix Google\u2019s monopoly over parts of a software system that marketers use to place advertisements on sites around the web. A judge is also set to rule as soon as this fall on whether Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, snuffed out nascent competitors.<\/p>\n
The government has also filed lawsuits against Amazon over allegations that it squeezed small merchants, and Apple, saying the company makes it hard for people to ditch its devices.<\/p>\n
Mehta\u2019s decision this week on Google search is similar, in broad strokes, to the endgame in the landmark antitrust suit against Microsoft, which was eventually settled in 2001. At the time, Microsoft was found to have illegally stifled competition in personal computer and Internet browsing software.<\/p>\n
As a result, the judge prohibited the company from imposing contracts on personal computer makers, which, in effect, forced them to use or favor Microsoft\u2019s software. The settlement opened the door for upstarts like Google but did not break up Microsoft or alter its business.<\/p>\n
Mehta\u2019s minimalist package similarly forces Google to abandon \u201cexclusive\u201d contracts with companies like Apple and Mozilla in which it pays them to make its search engine the one that automatically comes up when someone opens a browser or smartphone home screen. But the payments can continue.<\/p>\n
Some legal experts said that part of the decision was confusing, since there can only be one provider for search queries and users rarely change the automatically selected browser on their device.<\/p>\n
Mehta\u2019s ruling appeared to be written with an eye toward appeals, antitrust experts said. Higher courts have tended to be skeptical of aggressive antitrust enforcement, and the Supreme Court in particular has taken a conservative stance on antitrust in recent years.<\/p>\n
In 2021, the nation\u2019s highest court ruled that the NCAA could not use its market power to stop payments to student athletes. In a unanimous decision, the court found a clear antitrust violation in that case.<\/p>\n
But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, went out of his way to emphasize that the ruling in the NCAA case should not be taken as a sign of a progressive turn by the court\u2019s conservative majority.<\/p>\n
\u201cJudges make for poor \u2018central planners\u2019 and should never aspire to the role,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
Mehta echoed that sentiment throughout his 223-page ruling this week.<\/p>\n
\u201cNotwithstanding this power, courts must approach the task of crafting remedies with a healthy dose of humility,\u201d he said in Tuesday\u2019s decision. \u201cThis court has done so.\u201d<\/p>\n
The government and tech companies could settle their lawsuits, as Microsoft did more than two decades ago. But if not, there may be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the rules of competitive engagement for dominant companies in the Big Tech era.<\/p>\n
The Google antitrust search case is a prime candidate, antitrust experts said, having made the most progress though the courts and considering that it is a huge market used by virtually everyone.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think this one will go the distance,\u201d Kovacic said.<\/p>\n
Mehta\u2019s ruling also showed how the rapid change of technology may tie judges\u2019 hands.<\/p>\n
The government\u2019s suit against Google was filed in 2020, well before the recent surge of innovation in AI. Today, how people find information and seek answers is in flux. Internet search is one path, but increasingly so are AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, xAI and even Google\u2019s Gemini.<\/p>\n
What impact AI will have on search, and how soon, is unknown \u2013 and a reason cited by the judge in his ruling for his reluctance to choose stronger remedies.<\/p>\n
\u201cAI is changing the nature of search, and there\u2019s no telling how that\u2019s going to play out,\u201d said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Carey Law School. \u201cThat was clearly a concern.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the uncertainty created by AI did not necessarily mean the court should do less, said Fiona Scott Morton, an economics professor at the Yale University School of Management.<\/p>\n
The government had warned that Google could leverage its dominance in search to give it an unfair advantage in the AI race. Google has already embedded its own AI\u2019s answers at the top of its search results and added a tab to its search results page where users can converse with a chatbot about their queries.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you do too little, you might be turning AI into the next problem,\u201d said Scott Morton, a former Justice Department antitrust official.\u00a0\u2013\u00a0\u00a92025 The New York Times Company<\/p>\n