- Prosecutors proposed remedies after Google antitrust violation ruling by a federal judge.
- Judge Amit Mehta previously ruled Google violated antitrust laws by securing default search deals.
- The recommended remedies included limiting contracts that make Google the default search engine.
Months after a federal judge ruled that Google violated antitrust law with its search engine, prosecutors have recommended remedies that a judge could order the tech giant to implement.
If enacted, the “behavioral and structural remedies” prosecutors are seeking could force a major reorganization or even a breakup of some of Google’s basic businesses, including its search engine, which is so popular it became a verb.
A breakup — if it survived inevitable legal battles — would also mark a major escalation in the agency’s years-long antitrust fights against Big Tech, which have ensnared almost every major tech company.
One proposal — to limit or ban contracts that make Google the default search engine — could affect not just Google itself, but partners like Apple, which makes billions from Google.
Prosecutors said they’re considering a requirement that Google share the data that powers a big chunk of its business — the inputs and models for Google search and search results — through an application programming interface. It’s unclear how such an API would work, including if Google could charge for it or open it to the public, a possible fix that investors floated in recent months.
Another proposal would prevent the company from using its other products, such as Chrome and Android, to promote Google search over competitors.
Prosecutors said they may require Google to allow websites to opt out of having their content used to train or appear in Google’s AI results, as well as imposing restrictions on ads in search. Companies and consumers are increasingly concerned about how their data is being used to train AI models.
None of these proposals are final. Prosecutors will give the court a proposed final judgement next month and a revision of that judgement in March.
District Judge Amit Mehta will decide whether to enforce the changes proposed by prosecutors — any orders doled out would be intended to restore competition in the online search market. Google previously said that the company plans to appeal the ruling, which could delay the judge from imposing any remedies filed by the prosecution.
The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the proposed remedies.
Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf, a senior analyst at Emarketer, previously said Mehta’s ruling against Google “could be a huge deal — depending on the remedy.”
In August, Mehta ruled that Alphabet, Google’s parent company, violated antitrust laws by inking deals that made Google the default search engine on other platforms.
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his nearly 300-page ruling.
The ruling — and prosecutors’ remedies — should serve as a cautionary tale for Big Tech. The antitrust case against Google sparked the biggest monopoly ruling since Microsoft faced the potential of a breakup in the 1990s. Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, previously told BI that Google’s unsuccessful tangle with the Department of Justice is only fueling the DOJ’s “Big Tech battle.”
Shubhangi Goel contributed to this report.
This is a developing story. Check back for more updates.
Read the full article here
