The verdict that everyone expected and that almost no one satisfies
It seems that American justice has decided that the best way to deal with a technological giant is to hit it on the wrist with a pen. A federal judge, in a burst of bureaucratic bravery, has ordered a reorganization of Google’s search engine. Its stated objective is to stop the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly which, apparently, is bad… but not so bad as to dismantle the company. What a relief for shareholders! The government, with its wet dreams of corporate dismemberment, was left wanting. The restrictions imposed are so specific that one wonders if the judge doesn’t have something from Google in his portfolio.
District Judge Amit Mehta, from his throne in Washington, D.C., released a 226-page tome that will supposedly change the technological landscape. This occurs in the era of artificial intelligence, where chatbots like ChatGPT and Perplexity intend to challenge the throne. Ironically, the same judge admitted that predicting the future is not exactly a magistrate’s forte. Thank goodness he clarifies it, because for a moment we thought he had a crystal ball among his evidence.
The magic solution: share, but not too much
The genius of the ruling lies in its audacious mediocrity. Instead of banning the multimillion-dollar agreements that make Google the default on almost every device on the planet (deals that the same judge identified as the heart of the illegal monopoly), he decided that eliminating them would do “more harm than good.” Of course, because what would Apple be without its $20 billion annually for being an accomplice? Instead, the brilliant solution is to force Google to give its rivals access to part of its “secret formula”: the accumulated data from billions of searches. It’s like finding someone guilty of robbing a bank and condemning them to writing a thank-you note for the loot, as one critic rightly pointed out.
Google, of course, had fiercely opposed this, citing concern for the privacy and security of its users. How moving! The same company that lives off our data suddenly becomes a champion of privacy. Hypocrisy smells so strong you can smell it through the screen.
And don’t worry about Chrome. The judge rejected the idea of forcing its sale, concluding that it would be an “unjustified measure” and “complicated.” Wow, is breaking up a monopoly complicated? Who would have imagined it! Mehta decided that there was no adequate evidence that the browser was an essential ingredient in the monopoly. Of course not. Solo is the most used browser in the world, integrated with the most dominant search engine. Nothing essential.
The reactions: everyone wins, or so they say
The Justice Department, which didn’t get even half of what it wanted, called this a “huge victory for the American people.” Because, of course, when you think about the people, you think about allowing pacts that strangle competition to continue. Google, for its part, framed the ruling as a “vindication” and proof that the “case should never have been filed.” The audacity is admirable. Losing in essentials but winning in rhetoric is an art.
The investors, those great lovers of fair competition, celebrated it as a “relatively minor blow“. Alphabet shares soared more than 7%, adding a comfortable $200 billion to its market value. Nothing like an antitrust verdict to make you richer. Apple, another big beneficiary that had warned that losing Google’s money would hurt its “innovation,” also saw its stock rise. Because we all know that Apple’s innovation critically depends on Google’s checks.
Meanwhile, real competitors, like Firefox, are left watching from the poor man’s table, waiting for crumbs to fall from the contracts that Google can continue to sign. The survival of some depends on the charity of the monopolist. Long live the intense competition!
In short, failure is a masterclass in how to pretend to do something without actually doing it. It maintains the status quo, enriches the already rich, and offers token concessions to save face. A perfectly absurd ending to an almost five-year-old case. Google has already promised to appeal, because even a partial victory tastes like defeat when you’re used to winning everything.
Has this judicial outcome surprised you? Share it on your social networks and discover more analysis on the power of technology giants in our news section.
