Google is barred from exclusive search engine contracts but does not have to break up, judge rules in monopoly case

A judge in Washington decided on Tuesday, and Google needs to share data with competitors to compete online.

However, the US Regional Judge Amit Mehta rejected Donald Trump’s request for breaking by forcing the internet giant to sell the chrome browser from the justice department of Donald Trump.

A turning point that applied sweeping solutions aimed at restoring competition in online search was the peak of the antitröst case.

The decision arrived a year after the judge Mehta was illegally operated in Google search and relevant advertising, and organized special distribution agreements worth billions of dollars per year.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai claimed that data sharing measures sought by the Ministry of Justice could allow the technology giant to reversed the technology of its rivals.

The company already said it would appeal. This means that Google should comply with the judge’s decision.

The judge said in a 230 -page decision that Google would not have to sell the Android operating system.

He wrote: ‘Google will not have to dispose of the chrome; The court will not include a conditional disposal of the Android operating system in the last decision.

‘Plaintiffs have gathered over the forced disposal of these key assets, which Google did not use to realize any illegal restriction.’

The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Pam Bondi argued that Trump’s Ministry of Justice was an important passage for the Chrome browser for the Internet and facilitated one -third of all Google web calls.

However, the judge said that forcing a sale would be ‘incredibly messy’.

The Ministry of Justice also argued that Google should be ordered to stop ‘challenging union’.

This sees that the search engine makes agreements by default used in browsers and phones.

In 2021, companies, including Apple and Mozilla for such opportunities, paid 26 billion dollars and were allowed to continue.

Following the decision, Google’s parent company increased by 8 percent in the alphabet.

The shares in Apple also increased by 4 percent.

Sundar Pichai, Google CEO, will not see a turning point after the Antitröst decision.

US Chief Public Prosecutor Pam Bondi argued that President Donald Trump’s Ministry of Justice should be forced to sell Google’s Chrome browser

Judge Amite Mehta found that Google continued the monopolies illegally in the search of online through special agreements.

However, the decision, prohibiting them may have a very serious impact on other businesses, he said.

‘To cut payments from Google almost certainly, in some cases disability, downward damages will apply to distribution partners, relevant markets and consumers.’

Instead, he ordered Google to deliver search knee data and user interaction information that opponents can use to improve their services.

Google should also offer competitors the syndication of search results.

Google shares rose after the decision that did not require it to sell Chrome

In general, the judge’s decision was largely seen by experts in favor of Google.

At Deepwater Asset Management, the executive partner Gene Munster said, ‘The peel of the regulator is greater than bite.’

In April, Google lost a separate antitröst case for digital advertising.

A judge in Virginia, just outside the Washington DC, led the ‘monopoly power’ online news publishers who built the technology giant illegally.

This case was brought by the US Department of Justice, and Matthew Wheatland, the chief digital manager of Daily Mail, was an important witness.

Bondi, ‘Google’s digital public square to monopolize a turning point in the ongoing struggle to prevent victory’ he said.

‘Google abused the monopoly and monopoly power.’

Judge Amite Mehta made a 230 -page decision in the case

Cases are part of a large government attack against monopolistic practices of technology giants.

He has support from both Republicans and Democrats and includes lawsuits initiated under President Trump and President Joe Biden.

There are currently five antitröst cases against major technology companies by the US government.