A federal judge has ruled that Google is, in fact, a monopolist that broke the law. The punishment, however, has left critics and competitors alike in a state of furious disbelief, arguing that the ruling has effectively granted the tech giant permission to continue its dominance under a thin veneer of judicial oversight .
The decision, handed down by Judge Amit Mehta, found that Google illegally maintained its monopoly in online search. Yet, he spared the company from the most severe consequence sought by the Justice Department: a forced sell-off of its Chrome browser and Android operating system.
Instead, the court ordered Google to share some search data with rivals and to stop entering into certain exclusive contracts, remedies that critics have derided as a “slap on the wrist” for one of the most powerful corporations in human history.
The ruling has created a bizarre legal reality where a company can be found guilty of robbing a bank and sentenced to write a thank-you note for the loot.
Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, lambasted the logic, stating, “It’s like a defendant robbed a series of banks and the court verdict found them guilty, then sentenced them to probation under which they may continue robbing banks but must share data on how they rob banks with competing bank robbers.”
The stock market, that great barometer of corporate pain, seemed to agree with this assessment, as shares in Google’s parent company, Alphabet, jumped 9% on the news.
“This verdict proves our system is fundamentally broken,” said consumer advocate Lisa McCormick. “A company is found guilty of breaking the law, yet it emerges victorious, its power and profits intact. This is a two-tiered system of justice where corporate giants operate above the law, while ordinary citizens face its full, unforgiving weight.”
Judge Mehta’s reasoning for avoiding a breakup leaned heavily on the emerging threat of artificial intelligence, suggesting that new AI competitors might finally challenge Google’s throne.
He expressed a hope that “Google will not simply outbid competitors for distribution if superior competitors emerge.”
This judicial optimism, however, reads as a profound failure to understand the mechanics of monopoly power.
Google’s core advantage was never just its algorithm, but its stranglehold on distribution through the very tools—Chrome and Android—it was allowed to keep.
The judge himself admitted that gazing into the future is “not exactly a judge’s forte,” yet he proceeded to base his leniency on a crystal-ball prediction of a competitive AI market that does not yet exist.
The consequences of this ruling extend far beyond market share percentages. It signals to every other corporate titan that even the most egregious violation of the law will be met with a gentle tap.
As one observer starkly warned, this is a perilous moment to grant one company so much control over global access to knowledge, especially amid concerns that a Trump administration could pressure Google to shape search results to its liking, just as the company has already acquiesced to censorship demands from governments like Thailand and Vietnam.
The system has spoken and told us it is broken.
Google was found guilty, but Google has won. The law, it seems, remains a formidable tool for the powerful, and for the powerful alone.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.