We were waiting for the ruling in the Google vs DOJ trial, and we finally got it. We reported on that earlier, and now reactions are coming from all over the place . Google competitors are voicing their concerns, which is what we’ll be talking about here.
Before we get to it, let’s just go over what the US District Judge, Amit Mehta, said. He said that Google won’t be forced to divest Android or Chrome , but that the company can no longer sign exclusive deals for its products. On top of that, it must share search data with rivals.
Ruling on Google remedies are in, but rivals are saying they’re not good enough
Many of the company’s competitors aren’t happy with this ruling. DuckDuckGo’s CEO, Gabriel Weinberg, said the following : “We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google’s illegal behavior.”
He also added that Google will still be “allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search,” and as a result of that “consumers will continue to suffer.” He added that he believes Congress should step in and force Google to “compete on a level playing field.”
The CEO of Mozilla had a considerably different reaction than the CEO of DuckDuckGo
The CEO of Mozilla, Laura Chambers, had something to add too . She said the following: “We’re currently reviewing the judgment in detail, but it’s encouraging to see the Court recognize the risk of unintended consequences when trying to improve search competition — and not just for browsers like Firefox, but for the future of the open web.” Needless to say, this is a far more positive statement than what we got from DuckDuckGo’s CEO.
Senator Amy Klobuchar said that this ruling is a “reminder of Google’s sweeping power over the online economy, but the limited remedies ordered by the court demonstrate why we need additional rules of the road for Big Tech.”
She also added the following: “That’s why we must pass my bipartisan American Innovation and Choice Online Act to stop dominant platforms like Google from continuing to unfairly preference their own products over competitors’ — which hurts consumers and entrepreneurs, and stifles innovation.”
The executive director of The Tech Oversight Project has his doubts, too
Sacha Haworth, The Tech Oversight Project’s executive director, had something to say, too . He said that “while Judge Amit Mehta’s decision blocks some of Google’s predatory practices, it fails to meet this historic moment and shows that his decision was made based on speculative arguments about generative AI, in which Google, because of its interlocking monopolies and distribution advantage, is already a dominant player.”
He also added: “Search is one of the largest avenues for future AI queries, and it’s crystal clear that rather than doing the hard thing, Judge Mehta was far more willing to let Google continue bending the internet and our economy to its will than enforcing the law, which is designed to create a level playing field that benefits the American people and innovative, new companies.”
Google plans to appeal the initial ruling
It is worth noting that this sage is not over yet. Google will appeal the initial ruling, which proclaimed the company an illegal monopolist. Google will try to fight this decision by appealing the initial ruling.
