A U.S. District Court judge’s ruling on Monday, which concluded that the internet giant had engaged in illegal

activity to preserve its monopoly in online search, will be appealed by Google.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s ruling is a significant setback for Google and, should the ruling stand, could have an impact on how the company conducts business and perhaps the structure of the internet itself.

Mehta said that Google paid businesses like Apple to set its search engine as the default option on their gadgets and online browsers, abusing its dominant control over the search industry. The antitrust lawsuit against Google was filed in 2020 by the Justice Department and the states, and it was first heard in September.

Google pays businesses billions of dollars for prominent placement in web browsers and on smartphones, including Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla. Google paid $26 billion in 2021 alone to become the Apple and Android platforms’ primary search engine. About $18 billion of that total, according to The New York Times, was spent on Apple alone. Google and Apple split 36% of the income from search ads on Safari. According to the government, maintaining the dominant position through payment effectively prevented rivals from growing their own search engines to a size that would allow them to obtain the data and reach necessary to remain competitive.

“After carefully analyzing and weighing the material and witness testimony, the court finds that Google is a

monopolist and that it

Any individual or company that monopolizes, seeks to monopolize, or conspires to monopolize any aspect of trade or commerce is prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Google’s head of global affairs, Kent Walker, revealed to TechCrunch that the corporation intends to challenge the ruling. Walker restated Google’s earlier claims that it had created the best and most helpful search engine by leveraging its dominating market share, which has helped both users and advertisers.
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker told TechCrunch. “We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users’, that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices’, ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’”
that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users’, that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices’, ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’”
would-be search rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. The Department of Justice estimated that Google had a 90% share of the search market, a figure that Google disputed.
Walker told TechCrunch, “This ruling acknowledges that Google provides the greatest search engine, but it comes to the conclusion that we shouldn’t be permitted to make it widely accessible. “Google has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,” it “has continued to innovate in search,” it is “the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,” and “Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.” We appreciate the Court’s ruling on these points.

The case U.S. et al. v. Google, which lasted for years and culminated in a 10-week trial last year, comes to an end with this opinion. Attorneys general representing 38 states, the Department of Justice, andIn an election year, the case’s conclusion represents a major victory for the Justice Department, as former President Donald Trump would almost surely adopt a more hands-off, deregulatory stance toward technology if he were to win a second term in office. President Joe Biden has appointed Lina Khan to head the Federal Trade Commission. Big tech has not been fond of Khan’s track record of going after them, especially when it comes to antitrust laws.

This case might establish a standard for the several other antitrust cases that are now being heard in court. Apple is being sued by the DOJ for making it impossible for customers to move away from the iPhone. Additionally, MetaJudge Mehta’s decision Monday may also impact the outcome of the Justice Department’s second antitrust suit against Google, which alleges that Google illegally monopolized the digital ads market. Arguments for that case are scheduled to begin September 9.
The judge has yet to decide remedies for Google’s behavior. He could force the company to change the way it runs its search business — or order it to sell off parts of that business. The opinion could be appealed, of course, and the final verdict may differ significantly, as happened with Microsoft’s famed antitrust case in the dot-com era.
was recently sued by the FTC for wiping outIn one instance, Microsoft was forced to be divided into two companies by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who found that the business had broken antitrust rules. After Microsoft filed an appeal, the breakup order was overruled by an appeals court. However, Microsoft was still required to perform specific actions, which experts now believe could have an impact on Mehta’s behavioral remedies for Google. Microsoft was required to designate a panel to oversee its compliance and share its APIs

with outside businesses as part of the settlement agreement.

Update: The original version of this item appeared on August 5 at 12:20 p.m. PT. It has been updated with additional Google information and context.Greetings from TechCrunch comments! Please be kind and stick to the topic of the conversation. You might see comments from our Community Managers, who will be identified by a “TechCrunch Staff” or “Staff” label, in an effort to promote civil and fruitful dialogues. After an article has been up for three days, we close comments to ensure the best possible user experience. Comments are open for discussion on TechCrunch’s Conversations message boards for ever. Refer to our community guidelines for further details.