"U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta's September 2 remedies opinion in the U.S. v. Google monopolization (Google Search) case is in large part a rejection of government regulation of digital platforms in the guise of antitrust. The limited and cabined conduct-related remedies it imposes are far less significant than its rejection of the Department of Justice's proposed conduct and structural remedies, which included the divestiture of Chrome and Android."
"The monopolization cases against Google and other digital platforms raise many questions, given the major benefits platforms have conferred on consumers and economies worldwide. U.S. antitrust micromanagement of platform behavior may slow dynamic innovation and undermine U.S. international competitiveness. What's more, the Supreme Court has adopted a narrow rather skeptical approach to monopolization prosecutions. Given all these factors, U.S. antitrust enforcers may want to consider rethinking their platform prosecutions."
Judge Amit Mehta's September 2 remedies opinion largely rejected broad government regulation of digital platforms by declining the Department of Justice's proposed conduct and structural remedies, including divestiture of Chrome and Android. The opinion instead imposed limited, cabined conduct-related remedies. The decision will likely be appealed by both parties and leaves Google exposed to additional U.S. and foreign antitrust prosecutions and European regulatory actions. Other major technology firms, including Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, remain under antitrust scrutiny. Antitrust micromanagement of platforms risks slowing innovation and harming U.S. international competitiveness. The Supreme Court has shown a narrow, skeptical approach to monopolization prosecutions.
Read at Forbes
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]