antitrust

UK looking to loosen Google’s control of its search engine

antitrust, cma, competition, competition and markets authority, Google, Policy, syndication, UK / Kris Guyer / June 24, 2025

Other conduct rules that the CMA is considering include requirements in how it ranks its search results and for Google’s distribution partners such as Apple to offer “choice screens” to help consumers switch more easily between search providers.

The CMA said Alphabet-owned Google’s dominance made the cost of search advertising “higher than would be expected” in a more competitive market.

Google on Tuesday slammed the proposals as “broad and unfocused” and said they could threaten the UK’s access to its latest products and services.

Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director for competition, warned that “punitive regulations” could change how quickly Google launches new products in the UK.

“Proportionate, evidence-based regulation will be essential to preventing the CMA’s road map from becoming a roadblock to growth in the UK,” he added.

Bethell’s warning of the potential impact of any regulations on the wider UK economy comes after the government explicitly mandated the CMA to focus on supporting growth and investment while minimizing uncertainty for businesses.

Google said last year that it planned to invest $1 billion in a huge new data center just outside London.

The CMA’s probe comes after Google lost a pair of historic US antitrust cases over its dominance of search and its lucrative advertising business.

UK looking to loosen Google’s control of its search engine Read More »

Google settles shareholder lawsuit, will spend $500M on being less evil

antitrust, business, Google, shareholders, Tech / Mike M. / June 3, 2025

“Over the years, we have devoted substantial resources to building robust compliance processes,” a Google spokesperson said. “To avoid protracted litigation we’re happy to make these commitments.”

This case is what’s known as a consolidated derivative litigation, where multiple shareholder lawsuits are combined into a single action. The litigation stretches back to 2021, when a Michigan pension fund accused Google of harming the company’s future by triggering widespread antitrust and regulatory actions with “prolonged and ongoing monopolistic and anticompetitive business practices.” That accusation has only gained more weight in the years since it was made.

Today, Google is coming off three major antitrust losses. In 2023, Google lost an antitrust case brought by Epic Games that accused it of anticompetitive practices in app distribution. In 2024, the US Department of Justice successfully showed that Google has illegally maintained a search monopoly. Finally, Google lost the advertising antitrust case earlier this year, putting its primary revenue driver at risk.

These legal salvos could cost the company billions in fines and force major changes to its business. Google is facing a world in which it might need to open Google Play to other app stores, hand over advertising data to competitors, license its search index, and even sell the Chrome browser. Perhaps the reforms will lead to a changed company, but that won’t undo the damage from the current spate of antitrust actions.

Google settles shareholder lawsuit, will spend $500M on being less evil Read More »

Google and DOJ tussle over how AI will remake the web in antitrust closing arguments

antitrust, Google, search, Tech / Rejus Almole / May 31, 2025

At the same time, Google is seeking to set itself apart from AI upstarts. “Generative AI companies are not trying to out-Google Google,” said Schmidtlein. Google’s team contends that its actions have not harmed any AI products like ChatGPT or Perplexity, and at any rate, they are not in the search market as defined by the court.

Mehta mused about the future of search, suggesting we may have to rethink what a general search engine is in 2025. “Maybe people don’t want 10 blue links anymore,” he said.

The Chromium problem and an elegant solution

At times during the case, Mehta has expressed skepticism about the divestment of Chrome. During closing arguments, Dahlquist reiterated the close relationship between search and browsers, reminding the court that 35 percent of Google’s search volume comes from Chrome.

Mehta now seems more receptive to a Chrome split than before, perhaps in part because the effects of the other remedies are becoming so murky. He called the Chrome divestment “less speculative” and “more elegant” than the data and placement remedies. Google again claimed, as it has throughout the remedy phase, that forcing it to give up Chrome is unsupported in the law and that Chrome’s dominance is a result of innovation.

Break up the company without touching the sides and getting shocked! — Credit: Aurich Lawson

Even if Mehta leans toward ordering this remedy, Chromium may be a sticking point. The judge seems unconvinced that the supposed buyers—a group which apparently includes almost every major tech firm—have the scale and expertise needed to maintain Chromium. This open source project forms the foundation of many other browsers, making its continued smooth operation critical to the web.

If Google gives up Chrome, Chromium goes with it, but what about the people who maintain it? The DOJ contends that it’s common for employees to come along with an acquisition, but that’s far from certain. There was some discussion of ensuring a buyer could commit to hiring staff to maintain Chromium. The DOJ suggests Google could be ordered to provide financial incentives to ensure critical roles are filled, but that sounds potentially messy.

A Chrome sale seems more likely now than it did earlier, but nothing is assured yet. Following the final arguments from each side, it’s up to Mehta to mull over the facts before deciding Google’s fate. That’s expected to happen in August, but nothing will change for Google right away. The company has already confirmed it will appeal the case, hoping to have the original ruling overturned. It could still be years before this case reaches its ultimate conclusion.

Google and DOJ tussle over how AI will remake the web in antitrust closing arguments Read More »

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly case

antitrust, facebook, federal trade commission, ftc, Instagram, mark zuckerberg, Meta, meta monopoly trial, Policy, Social Media, whatsapp / Mike M. / May 17, 2025

Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it “does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them,” so it only shows more ads to users who click ads.

Meta also insisted that there’s “nothing but speculation” showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them.

The company claimed that without Meta’s resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was “pretty broken and duct-taped” together, making it “vulnerable to spam” before Meta bought it.

Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered “a consumer-welfare bonanza,” Meta argued, while dismissing “smoking gun” emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as “legally irrelevant.”

Dismissing these as “a few dated emails,” Meta argued that “efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg’s state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless.”

“What matters is what Meta did,” Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it “to ‘thrive’—adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success.”

In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that “the sole Meta witness to (supposedly) learn of Google’s acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry.”

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly case Read More »

Google’s search antitrust trial is wrapping up—here’s what we learned

AI, antitrust, DoJ, Google, search, Tech / Mike M. / May 10, 2025

Google and the DOJ have had their say; now it’s in the judge’s hands.

Last year, United States District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated antitrust law by illegally maintaining a monopoly in search. Now, Google and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have had their say in the remedy phase of the trial, which wraps up today. It will determine the consequences for Google’s actions, potentially changing the landscape for search as we rocket into the AI era, whether we like it or not.

The remedy trial featured over 20 witnesses, including representatives from some of the most important technology firms in the world. Their statements about the past, present, and future of search moved markets, but what does the testimony mean for Google?

Everybody wants Chrome

One of the DOJ’s proposed remedies is to force Google to divest Chrome and the open source Chromium project. Google has been adamant both in and out of the courtroom that it is the only company that can properly run Chrome. It says selling Chrome would negatively impact privacy and security because Google’s technology is deeply embedded in the browser. And regardless, Google Chrome would be too expensive for anyone to buy.

Unfortunately for Google, it may have underestimated the avarice of its rivals. The DOJ called witnesses from Perplexity, OpenAI, and Yahoo—all of them said their firms were interested in buying Chrome. Yahoo’s Brian Provost noted that the company is currently working on a browser that supports the company’s search efforts. Provost said that it would take 6–9 months just to get a working prototype, but buying Chrome would be much faster. He suggested Yahoo’s search share could rise from the low single digits to double digits almost immediately with Chrome.

Meanwhile, OpenAI is burning money on generative AI, but Nick Turley, product manager for ChatGPT, said the company was prepared to buy Chrome if the opportunity arises. Like Yahoo, OpenAI has explored designing its own browser, but acquiring Chrome would instantly give it 3.5 billion users. If OpenAI got its hands on Chrome, Turley predicted an “AI-first” experience.

On the surface, the DOJ’s proposal to force a Chrome sale seems like an odd remedy for a search monopoly. However, the testimony made the point rather well. Search and browsers are inextricably linked—putting a different search engine in the Chrome address bar could give the new owner a major boost.

Browser choice conundrum

Also at issue in the trial are the massive payments Google makes to companies like Apple and Mozilla for search placement, as well as restrictions on search and app pre-loads on Android phones. The government says these deals are anti-competitive because they lock rivals out of so many distribution mechanisms.

Google pays Apple and Mozilla billions of dollars per year to remain the default search engine in their browsers. Apple’s Eddie Cue admitted he’s been losing sleep worrying about the possibility of losing that revenue. Meanwhile, Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim explained that losing the Google deal could spell the end of Firefox. He testified that Mozilla would have to make deep cuts across the company, which could lead to a “downward spiral” that dooms the browser.

Google’s goal here is to show that forcing it to drop these deals could actually reduce consumer choice, which does nothing to level the playing field, as the DOJ hopes to do. Google’s preferred remedy is to simply have less exclusivity in its search deals across both browsers and phones.

The great Google spinoff

While Google certainly doesn’t want to lose Chrome, there may be a more fundamental threat to its business in the DOJ’s remedies. The DOJ argued that Google’s illegal monopoly has given it an insurmountable technology lead, but a collection of data remedies could address that. Under the DOJ proposal, Google would have to license some of its core search technology, including the search index and ranking algorithm.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai gave testimony at the trial and cited these data remedies as no better than a spinoff of Google search. Google’s previous statements have referred to this derisively as “white labeling” Google search. Pichai claimed these remedies could force Google to reevaluate the amount it spends on research going forward, slowing progress in search for it and all the theoretical licensees.

Currently, there is no official API for syndicating Google’s search results. There are scrapers that aim to offer that service, but that’s a gray area, to say the least. Google has even rejected lucrative deals to share its index. Turley noted in his testimony that OpenAI approached Google to license the index for ChatGPT, but Google decided the deal could harm its search dominance, which was more important than a short-term payday.

AI advances

Initially, the DOJ wanted to force Google to stop investing in AI firms, fearing its influence could reduce competition as it gained control or acquired these startups. The government has backed away from this remedy, but AI is still core to the search trial. That seemed to surprise Judge Mehta.

During Pichai’s testimony, Mehta remarked that the status of AI had shifted considerably since the liability phase of the trial in 2023. “The consistent testimony from the witnesses was that the integration of AI and search or the impact of AI on search was years away,” Mehta said. Things are very different now, Mehta noted, with multiple competitors to Google in AI search. This may actually help Google’s case.

AI search has exploded since the 2023 trial, with Google launching its AI-only search product in beta earlier this year.

Throughout the trial, Google has sought to paint search as a rapidly changing market where its lead is no longer guaranteed. Google’s legal team pointed to the meteoric rise of ChatGPT, which has become an alternative to traditional search for many people.

On the other hand, Google doesn’t want to look too meek and ineffectual in the age of AI. Apple’s Eddie Cue testified toward the end of the trial and claimed that rival traditional search providers like DuckDuckGo don’t pose a real threat to Google, but AI does. According to Cue, search volume in Safari was down for the first time in April, which he attributed to people using AI services instead. Google saw its stock price drop on the news, forcing it to issue a statement denying Cue’s assessment. It says searches in Safari and other products are still growing.

A waiting game

With the arguments made, Google’s team will have to sweat it out this summer while Mehta decides on remedies. A decision is expected in August of this year, but that won’t be the end of it. Google is still hoping to overturn the original verdict. After the remedies are decided, it’s going to appeal and ask for a pause on the implementation of remedies. So it could be a while before anything changes for Google.

In the midst of all that, Google is still pursuing an appeal of the Google Play case brought by Epic Games, as well as the ad tech case that it lost a few weeks ago. That remedy trial will begin in September.

Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he’s written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards.

Google’s search antitrust trial is wrapping up—here’s what we learned Read More »

DOJ confirms it wants to break up Google’s ad business

advertising, antitrust, Google, Policy / Rejus Almole / May 3, 2025

In the trial, Google will paint this demand as a severe overreach, claiming that few, if any, companies would have the resources to purchase and run the products. Last year, an ad consultant estimated Google’s ad empire could be worth up to $95 billion, quite possibly too big to sell. However, Google was similarly skeptical about Chrome, and representatives from other companies have said throughout the search remedy trial that they would love to buy Google’s browser.

An uphill battle

After losing three antitrust cases in just a couple of years, Google will have a hard time convincing the judge it is capable of turning over a new leaf with light remedies. A DOJ lawyer told the court Google is a “recidivist monopolist” that has a pattern of skirting its legal obligations. Still, Google is looking for mercy in the case. We expect to get more details on Google’s proposed remedies as the next trial nears, but it already offered a preview in today’s hearing.

Google suggests making a smaller subset of ad data available and ending the use of some pricing schemes, including unified pricing, that the court has found to be anticompetitive. Google also promised not to re-implement discontinued practices like “last look,” which gave the company a chance to outbid rivals at the last moment. This was featured prominently in the DOJ’s case, although Google ended the practice several years ago.

To ensure it adheres to the remedies, Google suggested a court-appointed monitor would audit the process. However, Brinkema seemed unimpressed with this proposal.

As in its other cases, Google says it plans to appeal the verdict, but before it can do that, the remedies phase has to be completed. Even if it can get the remedies paused for appeal, the decision could be a blow to investor confidence. So, Google will do whatever it can to avoid the worst-case scenario, leaning on the existence of competing advertisers like Meta and TikTok to show that the market is still competitive.

Like the search case, Google won’t be facing any big developments over the summer, but this fall could be rough. Judge Amit Mehta will most likely rule on the search remedies in August, and the ad tech remedies case will begin the following month. Google also has the Play Store case hanging over its head. It lost the first round, but the company hopes to prevail on appeal when the case gets underway again, probably in late 2025.

DOJ confirms it wants to break up Google’s ad business Read More »

Sundar Pichai says DOJ demands are a “de facto” spin-off of Google search

antitrust, DoJ, Google, Tech / Tim Belzer / May 1, 2025

The Department of Justice (DOJ) rested its case in Google’s search remedy trial earlier this week, giving Google a chance to push back on the government’s attempt to break up the search giant. Today is arguably Google’s best chance to make the case that it should not be harshly penalized in the ongoing search antitrust case, with CEO Sundar Pichai taking the stand.

Pichai attempted to explain why Google isn’t abusing its market position and why the DOJ’s proposed remedies are too extreme. The issue of Chrome divestment came up, but Google’s team also focused intensely on the potential effects of the DOJ’s data remedies, which could force Google to share its search index and technology with other firms.

A de facto spin-off

Pichai, who chose to stand while giving testimony, took issue with the government’s proposal to force Google to license search technology to other companies. The DOJ claims that Google’s status as a monopolist has resulted in it accumulating a huge volume of user data on search behavior. Plus, its significant technological lead means its index of the web is much more robust than competing services.

If the market is going to be rebalanced, the DOJ believes Google must be forced to license this data. Google has derisively referred to this as “white labeling” Google search.

According to Bloomberg, Pichai used even harsher language when discussing these remedies in court. He called this part of the government’s case “so far reaching, so extraordinary” that it would remake Google as a company and lead to numerous unintended consequences. To hear Pichai tell it, forcing Google to license this data for a nominal fee would be a “de facto divestiture of search.”

Giving other companies the option of using Google search index to map the web would make other products better, but Pichai claims they would essentially be able to reverse-engineer everything that makes Google’s platform special. And at that point, Google would need to reevaluate how it approaches innovation. Pichai suggests the data remedies could make it “unviable” for Google to invest in research and development as it has been for the past 20 years.

Sundar Pichai says DOJ demands are a “de facto” spin-off of Google search Read More »

OpenAI wants to buy Chrome and make it an “AI-first” experience

AI, antitrust, chrome, Google, openai, Tech / Kris Guyer / April 23, 2025

According to Turley, OpenAI would throw its proverbial hat in the ring if Google had to sell. When asked if OpenAI would want Chrome, he was unequivocal. “Yes, we would, as would many other parties,” Turley said.

OpenAI has reportedly considered building its own Chromium-based browser to compete with Chrome. Several months ago, the company hired former Google developers Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher, both of whom worked to bring Chrome to market.

Close-up of Google Chrome Web Browser web page on the web browser. Chrome is widely used web browser developed by Google. — Credit: Getty Images

It’s not hard to see why OpenAI might want a browser, particularly Chrome with its 4 billion users and 67 percent market share. Chrome would instantly give OpenAI a massive install base of users who have been incentivized to use Google services. If OpenAI were running the show, you can bet ChatGPT would be integrated throughout the experience—Turley said as much, predicting an “AI-first” experience. The user data flowing to the owner of Chrome could also be invaluable in training agentic AI models that can operate browsers on the user’s behalf.

Interestingly, there’s so much discussion about who should buy Chrome, but relatively little about spinning off Chrome into an independent company. Google has contended that Chrome can’t survive on its own. However, the existence of Google’s multibillion-dollar search placement deals, which the DOJ wants to end, suggests otherwise. Regardless, if Google has to sell, and OpenAI has the cash, we might get the proposed “AI-first” browsing experience.

OpenAI wants to buy Chrome and make it an “AI-first” experience Read More »

Chrome on the chopping block as Google’s search antitrust trial moves forward

ai search, antitrust, department of justice, Google, Policy / Kris Guyer / April 22, 2025

The court ruled that Google has a search monopoly. Now, we learn the consequences.

The remedy phase of Google’s search antitrust trial is getting underway, and the government is seeking to force major changes. The next few weeks could reshape Google as a company and significantly alter the balance of power on the Internet, and both sides have a plan to get their way.

With opening arguments beginning today, the US Justice Department will seek to convince the court that Google should be forced to divest Chrome, unbundle Android, and make other foundational changes. But Google will attempt to paint the government’s position as too extreme and rooted in past grievances. No matter what happens at this trial, Google hasn’t given up hope it can turn back time.

Advantage for Justice Dept.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a major advantage here: Google is guilty. It lost the liability phase of this trial resoundingly, with the court finding Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power.” As far as the court is concerned, Google has an illegal monopoly in search services and general search advertising. The purpose of this trial is to determine what to do about it, and the DOJ has some ideas.

This case, overseen by United States District Judge Amit Mehta, is taking place against a backdrop that is particularly unflattering for Google. It has been rocked by loss after loss in its antitrust cases, including the Epic-backed Google Play case, plus the search case that is at issue here. And just last week, a court ruled that Google abused its monopoly in advertising tech. The remedies in Google’s app store case are currently on hold pending appeal, but that problem is not going away. Meanwhile, Google is facing even more serious threats in the remedy phase of this trial.

The DOJ will come out guns blazing—it sees this as the most consequential antitrust case in the US since the Microsoft trial of the 1990s. The effects of breaking up Google could even rival the impact of antitrust actions against AT&T and Standard Oil decades earlier. We also expect to be reminded repeatedly that virtually every state has joined the government’s case against Google, indicating wide understanding that the market is not operating fairly.

A large seal of a white, Classical Revival-style office building is flanked by flags.

It’s no secret that incentives at the federal level are shifting as the second Trump administration politicizes the Justice Department to an unprecedented degree. Despite the new divisions, opinions are remarkably unified on the Google search case. The DOJ team has successfully made the case that Google is a monopolist, and now they have to enforce the law. The new conservative leadership sees Google as a principal source of the “censorship” of right-wing ideology, which they largely interpret as a downstream effect of Google’s undue market power.

This phase of the case is not about whether or not Google did it; the goal is to decide how to change Google. The DOJ tells Ars that it believes Google’s proposed remedies are anemic and won’t move the needle at all. In this case, government lawyers will argue that the playing field cannot be leveled unless Google gives something up, and that something ought to be Chrome. The government will attempt to show that Google’s handling of Chrome creates a barrier to competition, preferencing Google’s services over the competition.

The DOJ has suggested there are numerous entities that could acquire Chrome and instantly realign online markets, but Google is going to push back hard on that. The government will counter by producing multiple witnesses from Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Microsoft, and others to explain how their search businesses were stymied by Google and how hacking off Chrome could rectify that.

The DOJ is also interested in Google’s search placement deals—for example, paying Apple and Mozilla billions of dollars to make Google their default search engine. In the government’s view, this forced rivals to nibble around the edges after being locked out by Google’s contracts. The DOJ will try to have these contracts banned in addition to forcing the sale of Chrome.

Not done fighting

Google has already announced its preferred remedies in this case, which amount to less exclusivity in search contracts and more freedom for Android OEMs to choose app preloads. Google says it would also accept additional government oversight to ensure it abides by these remedies.

In the remedy phase, Google will try to portray the Justice Department’s proposal as heavy-handed and emblematic of the agency’s “interventionist agenda.” We expect to see Google looking for any opportunity to make the DOJ look out of touch with the realities of technology today.

Google says it will spend a lot of time arguing against the DOJ’s attempt to end search placement deals, and it will have some backup here in the form of representatives from Mozilla and Apple, both of which are paid billions of dollars per year to make Google their default search engine. These firms will explain Google’s services are the best available, and that’s why they use them. In the case of Mozilla, almost all the foundation’s revenue comes from Google, and Google doesn’t dispute that. In fact, it has noted in the past (and surely will again at the trial) that Mozilla would fold without all that Google money, and that’s bad for user choice. However, the DOJ will probably point out that the massive revenue Apple and Mozilla get from these deals makes their testimony less reliable.

Another pillar of Google’s opposition will be the privacy and security implications of the DOJ’s demand for data sharing. The DOJ will claim this is essential to help other search providers to compete, but Google will paint this as a threat to the privacy of user data. And then there’s the national security angle, which Google has been pushing harder since the start of the year.

More than anything else, Google doesn’t want to lose Chrome. We expect to see Google’s established opposition to Chrome divestiture cranked up to 11 in the remedy phase. The company will no doubt be able to point to many instances where it acted as a benevolent steward of the open web through the dominance of Chrome. It chose to make Chromium open source and has kept it that way, even though it could have made more money keeping the code to itself.

There is uncertainty about the future of Chrome if it’s sold off, and a Google spokesperson suggests the company will capitalize on that. Google’s legal team will forecast a world in which Chrome has become less secure without Google’s involvement, the Chromium project has crumbled, and browser choice has cratered. Google says its goal of providing easy access to its products and services gives it a strong incentive to keep Chrome free and open, which may not be the case for its new owner. The DOJ would call that self-dealing, of course.

While the government has backed away from the stringent AI investment limits in its original remedy request, Google still worries its AI efforts could be hampered by limits on self-dealing. We expect Google to talk about the rapid pace of changes in AI today, portraying this case as too focused on how the search market worked a decade ago. The company may even go so far as to admit it’s losing ground to the likes of OpenAI as more people use AI to get answers to their questions instead of traditional web search. But can a company worth $2 trillion count on anyone feeling sorry for it?

A time of consequence

The trial will run for a few weeks, and later on, we’ll learn what remedies the court has decided to impose. That doesn’t mean anything will change for Google in the short- or medium-term, though. All the lawyering should be done by early May, and then it’s up to Judge Mehta to decide on the final remedies, which could come as late as August 2025.

That won’t be the end of things. Google is adamant that it plans to appeal the case, but it has to go through the remedy phase first. Google may be able to get the remedies paused while it pursues a new verdict, similar to the current state of the app store case. Much of what the DOJ wants would fundamentally alter the nature of Google’s business, making it difficult to undo the changes if Google does prevail on appeal.

Even if Google can maintain the status quo for the foreseeable future, the company could be headed into Google I/O in late May with a sword of Damocles dangling over its metaphorical head. Google has enjoyed years of growth so stupendous and unprecedented that it reshaped media and commerce. If Google is forced to give up a key product like Chrome or lose its default status in popular products, there’s no telling how the Internet could change. One thing is certain, though. The next few weeks will be the most consequential for Google since it went public more than 20 years ago.

Chrome on the chopping block as Google’s search antitrust trial moves forward Read More »

Apple barred from Google antitrust trial, putting $20 billion search deal on the line

antitrust, Apple, Google, Policy, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 26, 2025

Apple has suffered a blow in its efforts to salvage its lucrative search placement deal with Google. A new ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that Apple cannot participate in Google’s upcoming antitrust hearing, which could leave a multibillion-dollar hole in Apple’s balance sheet. The judges in the case say Apple simply waited too long to get involved.

Just a few years ago, a high-stakes court case involving Apple and Google would have found the companies on opposing sides, but not today. Apple’s and Google’s interests are strongly aligned here, to the tune of $20 billion. Google forks over that cash every year, and it’s happy to do so to secure placement as the default search provider in the Safari desktop and mobile browser.

The antitrust penalties pending against Google would make that deal impermissible. Throughout the case, the government made the value of defaults clear—most people never change them. That effectively delivers Google a captive audience on Apple devices.

Google’s ongoing legal battle with the DOJ’s antitrust division is shaping up to be the most significant action the government has taken against a tech company since Microsoft in the late ’90s. Perhaps this period of stability tricked Google’s partners into thinking nothing would change, but the seriousness of the government’s proposed remedies seems to have convinced them otherwise.

Google lost the case in August 2024, and the government proposed remedies in October. According to MediaPost, the appeals court took issue with Apple’s sluggishness in choosing sides. It didn’t even make its filing to participate in the remedy phase until November, some 33 days after the initial proposal. The judges ruled this delay “seems difficult to justify.”

When Google returns to court in the coming weeks, the company’s attorneys will not be flanked by Apple’s legal team. While Apple will be allowed to submit written testimony and file friend-of-the-court briefs, it will not be able to present evidence to the court or cross-examine witnesses, as it sought. Apple argued that it was entitled to do so because it had a direct stake in the outcome.

Apple barred from Google antitrust trial, putting $20 billion search deal on the line Read More »

Google tells Trump’s DOJ that forcing a Chrome sale would harm national security

antitrust, chrome, Google, national security, Policy / Paul Patrick / March 6, 2025

The government’s 2024 request also sought to have Google’s investment in AI firms curtailed even though this isn’t directly related to search. If, like Google, you believe leadership in AI is important to the future of the world, limiting its investments could also affect national security. But in November, Mehta suggested he was open to considering AI remedies because “the recent emergence of AI products that are intended to mimic the functionality of search engines” is rapidly shifting the search market.

This perspective could be more likely to find supporters in the newly AI-obsessed US government with a rapidly changing Department of Justice. However, the DOJ has thus far opposed allowing AI firm Anthropic to participate in the case after it recently tried to intervene. Anthropic has received $3 billion worth of investments from Google, including $1 billion in January.

New year, new Justice Department

Google naturally opposed the government’s early remedy proposal, but this happened in November, months before the incoming Trump administration began remaking the DOJ. Since taking office, the new administration has routinely criticized the harsh treatment of US tech giants, taking aim at European Union laws like the Digital Markets Act, which tries to ensure user privacy and competition among so-called “gatekeeper” tech companies like Google.

We may get a better idea of how the DOJ wants to proceed later this week when both sides file their final proposals with Mehta. Google already announced its preferred remedy at the tail end of 2024. It’s unlikely Google’s final version will be any different, but everything is up in the air for the government.

Even if current political realities don’t affect the DOJ’s approach, the department’s staffing changes could. Many of the people handling Google’s case today are different than they were just a few months ago, so arguments that fell on deaf ears in 2024 could move the needle. Perhaps emphasizing the national security angle will resonate with the newly restaffed DOJ.

After both sides have had their say, it will be up to the judge to eventually rule on how Google must adapt its business. This remedy phase should get fully underway in April.

Google tells Trump’s DOJ that forcing a Chrome sale would harm national security Read More »

Disney, Fox, and WBD give up on controversial sports streaming app Venu

antitrust, DirectTV, DISH, Disney, Fox, sports, streaming, Uncategorized, warner bros. discovery / Mike M. / January 11, 2025

Although Fubo’s lawsuit against the JV appears to be settled, other rivals in sports television seemed intent on continuing to fight Venu.

In a January 9 letter (PDF) to US District Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the Southern District in New York, who granted Fubo’s premliminary injunction against Venu, Michael Hartman, general counsel and chief external affairs officer for DirectTV, wrote that Fubo’s settlement “does nothing to resolve the underlying antitrust violations at issue.” Hartman asked the court to maintain the preliminary injunction against the app’s launch.

“The preliminary injunction has protected consumers and distributors alike from the JV Defendant’s scheme to ‘capture demand,’ ‘suppress’ potentially competitive sports bundles, and impose consumer price hikes,” the letter says, adding that DirectTV would continue to explore its options regarding the JV “and other anticompetitive harms.”

Similarly, Pantelis Michalopoulos, counsel for EchoStar Corporation, which owns Dish, penned a letter (PDF) to Garnett on January 7, claiming the members of the JV “purchased their way out of their antitrust violation.” Michalopoulos added that the JV defendants “should not be able to pay their way into erasing the Court’s carefully reasoned decision” to temporarily block Venu’s launch.

In addition to Fubo, DirecTV, and Dish, ACA Connects (a trade association for small- to medium-sized telecommunication service providers) publicly expressed concerns about Venu. NFL was also reported to be worried about the implications of the venture.

Now, the three giants behind Venu are throwing in the towel and abandoning an app that could have garnered a lot of subscribers tired of hopping around apps, channels, and subscriptions to watch all the sports content they wanted. But they’re also avoiding a lot of litigation and potential backlash in the process.

Disney, Fox, and WBD give up on controversial sports streaming app Venu Read More »