A historical antitrust case against Google is approaching his conclusion when the American district judge Amit Mehta weighs radical remedies after the search engine designation is an illegal monopoly. | Photocredit: Mike Blake/Reuters
The fate and fortunes of one of the world’s most powerful technology companies is now in the hands of an American judge struggling with the fact that he imposes far -reaching changes on Google in the aftermath of his dominant search engine that is explained an illegal monopoly.
The American district judge Amit Mehta On Friday heard the conclusion of arguments of lawyers from the Ministry of Justice who claimed that a radical commotion is needed to promote a free and honest market.
Their proposed remedies include a ban on Google that pays to lock its search engine as standard on smart devices and an order that the company requires to sell its Chrome browser.
The Legal Team of Google argued that only small concessions are needed and at Mehta did not unnecessarily punish the company with a hard statement that could challenge future innovations.
Google also argued that the revolution caused the search landscape caused by progress in artificial intelligence, because interview research options are rolled out of AI-startups that hope to use the four-and-half-year-old case of the Ministry of Justice to get the prevention in the next technological limit.
It was an argument that Mehta seemed to give a serious consideration while he was wondering about the speed with which the AI industry grew.
He also indicated that he was still undecided about how much the potential of AI to shake up the search market should be included in his upcoming statement.
“This is what I was struggling with,” said Mehta.
Mehta often spoke during the hearing on Friday and often asked lawyers for both parties, while he was hinting that he was looking for a middle ground between the proposed remedies of the two camps.
“We are not looking for Kneecap Google,” the judge said, adding that the goal was to “kickstart” the ability of the competitors to “kickstart” the search giant.
Mehta will spend a large part of the summer with the consideration of a decision he intends to give before Labor Day (1 September). Google has already sworn to appeal against the statement that his search engine has branded as a monopoly, a step that it cannot take until the judge orders a remedy.
Google’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, asked Mehta to give a 60 -day delay in the implementation of any proposed changes, to which the judiciary David Dahlquist immediately objected.
“We believe that the market has waited long enough,” said Dahlquist.
Although both parties of this confrontation agree that AI is a bending point for the future of industry, they have different views on how the shift will influence Google.
The Ministry of Justice argues that AI technology itself will not rise and claim that extra legal limitations should be made on a search engine that is the main reason that her parent company, Alphabet Inc, is appreciated on USD 2 trillion.
Google has already used AI to transform its search engine into an answer motor, an attempt that has helped so far to keep Baars as the main gateway of the internet, even though they are made by alternatives from people such as OpenAi and Perplexity.
The Ministry of Justice argues a repulsion of the Chrome -Browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai built up almost 20 years ago, one of the most effective countermeasures against Google could collect that huge amounts of browser traffic and personal data that can be used to retain its dominance in the AI Time.
Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be enthusiastic bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders his sale.
The debate about Google’s fate has also drawn opinions from Apple, developers of mobile apps, legal scientists and startups.
Apple, which collects more than USD 20 billion annually to turn Google the standard search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, has submitted a letter with regard to the proposed prohibition of 10 years on such lucrative lock-in agreements of the Ministry of Justice.
Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it would put forward to its own research, and that the prohibition could even make Google even more powerful because the company could hold its money, while consumers would still choose its search engine.
De Cupertino, California, also told the judge that a ban would not force it to build his own search engine to compete against Google. (AP) Ari
Published on May 31, 2025
#Judge #breaking #Google #sells #Chrome #curb #search #monopoly