This week, concerns grew surrounding a recent judgment stating that Google would not be compelled to sell its Chrome browser, a decision that has drawn discontent from various stakeholders including politicians and CEOs. Notable figures, including Tim Sweeney, voiced their dissatisfaction with what they see as a mere slap on the wrist for Google’s prior illegal activities.

As highlighted by the Guardian, Barry Lynn, the Executive Director of the Open Market Institute, condemned the ruling, stating: “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.”

Nidhi Hedge, head of the American Economic Liberties Project, expressed similar sentiments: “You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot.”

Critics deem the court’s approach a feckless remedy to a significant monopolization case, demanding a reevaluation of the conditioning sanctions placed on Google. Senator Elizabeth Warren agreed, noting that the judge’s measures do not hold Google accountable for transgressions, while Tim Sweeney commented on the continued practices of Google despite the ruling.

In this ongoing legal battle, the US DOJ affirmed their commitment to pursuing stronger remedies, with their head stating, “We’re not done.”

This decision comes at a crucial juncture as the court seeks to examine Google’s operations further, particularly in relation to generative AI and its market dominance.

Image
(Image credit: Capcom)
The ruling expects to reach a conclusion by September 10, suggesting that the DOJ’s pursuit of Google might extend beyond the surface of these initial decisions.