Things didn’t look good for Google after a judge found that the company’s search engine is a monopoly.
But Northeastern University technology and antitrust experts predict that the remedy the judge imposed — that Google share search data with “qualified competitors” — will make Google executives very happy.
“This ruling is a major victory for Google,” says John Kwoka, Neal F. Finnegan distinguished professor of economics at Northeastern. “‘Remedies’ that depend on the incumbent monopolist for their effectiveness have a dismal track record.”
Christo Wilson, professor and associate dean of undergraduate programs at Northeastern’s Khoury College of Computer Sciences, concurs.
“I don’t think this ruling is strong enough to make a difference,” Wilson adds, saying that Google executives are probably “elated” at the news.
Wilson, who has done digital consumer protection research on online platforms including Google, says that he finds the judge’s remedy hard to reconcile with the finding that Google search is a monopoly.
“They just seem at odds,” Wilson says. “You identified a problem, but you are abdicating your responsibility to solve the problem.”
The Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against Google in 2020, arguing that the company used exclusive agreements with device makers like Apple and Samsung to give Google’s search engine a prime position on phones or computers — thus unfairly boxing out its competitors. In return, companies like Apple received billions of dollars in payments from Google, the suit alleged.
In August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in the DOJ’s favor, finding that Google had maintained an illegal monopoly over search.
That began the second — or remedy — phase of the trial, with the judge essentially deciding what the company had to do about its monopoly.
The DOJ requested that Google spin off its browser, Chrome, and share search data. Google objected, agreeing only to roll back its exclusive search engine contracts.
Mehta ruled largely in Google’s favor, Northeastern experts say.
“Google does not have to divest Chrome or Android, even though those were the mechanisms for gaining share, preventing the emergence of new competitors and monetizing its search monopoly,” Kwoka says. “Google does not even have to offer a choice screen for alternative search engines — not that screens were always effective, but this ruling makes no effort whatsoever to compel choice.”
Moreover, the sharing of search data will likely not change anything — at least anytime soon, Kwoka says.
“Crucially, the requirement that Google provide access to their search database for ‘qualified competitors,’ well, Google could not have written language better suited to endless debate and delay,” Kwoka continues.
He says that “one can already imagine” how Google will interpret the term “qualified” to raise privacy issues and concerns over seamless operation, to exclude certain competitors, and “stall” in providing full and continuous updates.
Wilson agrees.
“I don’t particularly subscribe to this as a reasonable remedy because I think it’s a recipe for malicious compliance,” Wilson says.
Moreover, Wilson says that sharing search data – even if it happens – doesn’t solve the monopoly problem.
“Let’s just say that they comply, and they start giving data to Microsoft or Open AI,” Wilson says. “They can go and build search engines – and maybe they will – but that doesn’t solve the problem of how to get that search engine in front of people in a way that they will use it and become long-term users.”
Finally, neither Wilson nor Kwoka was swayed by Mehta’s reasoning that search based on artificial intelligence will provide competition to Google and thus warranted a spinoff of Chrome or other more drastic remedies.
“There is very little data suggesting that the AI companies are seriously challenging Google in the search space,” Wilson says. “But even if we accept the thesis that AI is going to change how search works, that doesn’t mean Google is going anywhere. Gemini (Google’s AI assistant) is deeply integrated into all their products now.”
Kwoka concurred.
“(The judge’s reasoning) overlooks the fact that the tech companies — including Google — have been busy acquiring leaders in AI,” Kwoka says. “Given how AI has been allowed to evolve, that sector will not bring the necessary competition to search. This ruling ensures that.”