Why BigTech critics accuse US judge of letting Google “off the hook”

In the modern internet era, few monopoly cases have drawn as much scrutiny in Silicon Valley—and beyond—as the US government’s landmark lawsuit challenging Google’s dominance in online search.

But a year after declaring that Google was “a monopolist,” Judge Amit Mehta unveiled a set of remedies this week, which according to reporting by The Guardian, many critics view as letting the tech giant off easy.

The ruling confirmed that Google will not be forced to sell its Chrome browser or Android operating system, sparing the company from the most severe penalties sought by the US government. 

The same judge sided with prosecutors in August 2024, finding that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly with its flagship search engine.

Critics of Google’s grip on internet search and online advertising are outraged. They argue the judge squandered a rare chance to enact meaningful change in a market long dominated by the company’s influence.

By contrast, tech industry groups and investors welcomed the decision. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, saw its shares climb 9% after the announcement on September 2.

Judge Mehta did order Google to share search engine data with rivals and barred it from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts related to the distribution of products such as Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app.

However, the order does not prohibit Google from paying distributors like Apple and Mozilla to keep Google as the default search engine in their browsers. Google will face a separate hearing later this year regarding its dominance in online advertising technology.

The Department of Justice hailed the ruling in a statement calling Mehta’s proposed remedies “significant.”

“The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade,” the announcement read—an opinion not shared by everyone.

Critics say judge handed Google lenient win

The backlash from antitrust advocates was swift. Many had long urged regulators to break up Google, arguing that only decisive action could restore competition.

Instead, critics claim the ruling entrenches Google’s dominance and sends a message that tech giants can flout the law without facing real consequences.

Several tech executives, including the CEOs of Yelp, DuckDuckGo, and Epic Games, also slammed the decision for failing to level the playing field. Yelp and Epic Games have both sued Google over antitrust issues, while DuckDuckGo’s CEO testified against the company during the government’s trial.

“Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation and rob Americans of their right to read, watch and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history,” said Barry Lynn, executive director at the Open Markets Institute. 

“Judge Mehta’s order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs. Instead, it lets Google and every other monopolist know that even the most egregious violation of law will be met with a slap on the wrist.”

Others criticized the apparent disconnect between last year’s finding that Google illegally maintained a monopoly and this week’s relatively mild penalties.

“You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot,” said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project.

By Nazrin Sadigova