On September 2, the final ruling was finally announced in the historic antitrust case against Google brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Federal Judge Amit Mehta had already concluded last year that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in the internet search market, but what remained to be seen were the exact measures to be taken against the tech giant.
There was a great deal of anticipation, especially because some of the potential measures could have had a very significant impact, both for the company itself and for our websites. However, as we had already predicted in the article How the Google trial could affect my website, the corrective measures imposed turned out to be fairly moderate.
Neither Android nor Chrome—possibly Google’s two most strategic assets—were ordered to be sold off.
Instead, the ruling does establish a number of other, less sweeping measures aimed at ending some of the exclusive practices that guaranteed Google’s supremacy as the default search engine, such as requiring the company to share part of its search data with competitors.
Measures established by the antitrust ruling
- Ban on exclusivity contracts. Google will no longer be able to sign exclusive agreements to impose its search engine as the default on mobile devices, browsers, or carrier networks as it has done until now. However, what it will still be able to do is continue paying manufacturers or providers for the preinstallation of its services, as long as the agreements don’t include clauses that block competitors. In addition, these agreements will be limited to a maximum of one year, and licenses or payments cannot be tied across products.
- Sharing data with rivals. Google will have to provide its competitors with access to part of its search index, as well as various user interaction data. This includes, for example, queries and clicks with limited scope and frequency. From an SEO standpoint, this measure could provide useful insights into coverage and search intent, although its real impact will depend on how it is implemented.
- Independent oversight. A technical committee made up of experts in AI, economics, and privacy will be appointed to oversee compliance with these measures.
- Time-limited obligations. The obligations imposed will have a set duration (6 years), after which they may be reassessed, extended, or eliminated.
- No drastic divestitures. The judge ruled out more radical measures such as forcing the sale of Android or Chrome, or introducing a global search engine choice screen.
Looking at the measures taken, we can conclude that Google’s business model remains virtually intact, even though these obligations will require it to compete under slightly less favorable conditions. One proof of the mildness of these impositions is that Alphabet’s stock price rose after the ruling was announced.
Predictions vs. reality
It’s time to review all the predictions we made in our article prior to the trial and see how accurate we were:
- Sale of Chrome or Android: we predicted it was unlikely, and indeed the ruling confirmed that neither would have to be sold.
- Ban on exclusivity agreements: our predictions came true, the ruling prohibits these contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and AI products.
- Sharing search data: we predicted it would be limited and basic, and that’s exactly what happened: Google will have to share part of its index and user interaction data.
- Independent audit: this also came true, as there will be an external technical oversight committee.
- Search engine choice screens: they were not implemented globally, just as we suspected might be the case.
In summary, 4 out of 5 predictions were correct. Despite all the media buzz, Google will continue to be the dominant search engine, though with a slightly smaller edge over its competitors.
