Judge Mehta's Google Antitrust Remedies: Threading The Needle Between Overkill And Underkill - Above the Law
Briefly

Judge Mehta's Google Antitrust Remedies: Threading The Needle Between Overkill And Underkill - Above the Law
"Last summer, when Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had violated antitrust laws through its search distribution agreements, I was left wondering what the hell any reasonable remedy would look like. The case always struck me as weird-Google was paying billions to Apple and Mozilla to be the default search engine because users actually wanted Google as the default. Any remedy seemed likely to either do nothing useful or actively harm the very competitors it was supposed to help."
"The DOJ had pushed for some truly bonkers structural remedies, including forcing Google to sell off Chrome or Android. Mehta wasn't having it: Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment. Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints."
"The core remedy targets the actual problem-Google's exclusive distribution agreements: Google will be barred from entering or maintaining any exclusive contract relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. This tracks the violation, which is good. But here's where it gets tricky. The ruling also says: Google will not be barred from making payments or offering other consideration to distribution partners"
The court declined to order divestiture of Chrome or Android, finding those assets unrelated to the unlawful restraints. The remedy targets exclusive distribution agreements that locked Google Search into default positions. Google will be barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts for Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. The ruling nonetheless allows Google to make payments or offer other consideration to distribution partners, which may create loopholes. The approach focuses on the contractual lock-ups rather than structural breakups, but leaves enforcement and practical effects uncertain and potentially messy.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]