The renaissance of anti -technological monopoly may actually end

About six years ago, a new massive cry spanned Washington: “Dismantling of big technology.”

It was a decorated slogan Campaign postersUttering in Listening sessions in CongressAnd it seems, apparently, to hesitate through the halls of the executors to combat monopoly in the country. The momentum in legislative bodies Ultimately set outBut the executors in the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Trade Committee remained more active than ever. President Joe Biden did not take a kind of difficult position on great technology such as political competitors such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was adopted, but nevertheless, when he became president in 2021, Lina Khan-who made a name for herself as a law student who sets up Anti -monopoly issue against Amazon in Yale Lu magazine – For the chairmanship of the Federal Trade Committee. A large group of legal complaints against Google, Meta, Amazon and Apple, which threatens to resolve their alleged monopolies (some who were brought first under Donald Trump’s management).

Last year, the United States government seemed to have been in a chain of victory, as it achieved victories in Not oneand But two Anti -monopoly issues against Google. On Tuesday, however, the Ministry of Justice finally struck a stumbling block. Judge Amit Miha, whose power announced Google strongly, gave Google a monopoly illegal, who only granted a handful of treatments required for the government to go beyond what Google itself recognized. The most aggressive Ministry of Justice’s proposals, such as forcing Google to sell their Chrome browser, and greatly narrow others, such as about the amount of data that Google will have to share with competitors to help them compete.

Among the many cases of anti -technological monopoly that the government has brought in the past few years, this is the first issue of receiving remedies. Judges in other cases are likely to choose a harder approach. The Ministry of Justice and Google will meet in the courtroom in Virginia later this month to discuss appropriate treatments to restore competition to the advertising technology market that the judge found that Google also monopolizes. Disintegrate Still on the table there.

However, the Mihata’s careful approach to solving Google’s search is good news not only for Google but for all technology giants, and an indication of how difficult it is to dismantle. Through the departments, the perpetrators overcame years of recession to bring issues against four of the largest technology companies. Mihita’s ruling for 2024 against Google, declaring that she had an illegal monopoly in research, was a historical history. But in the end, it seems that a major change to restore competition will not be imminent. To prevent separation, Tech Titan only needs the system once.

This obstacle is more complicated by the fast-moving nature of the technology industry-which is a matter of many as a possible issue, but it has become a very clear complexity with the explosion in artificial intelligence technology. Mihata pointed out the rise of the artificial intelligence industry to justify the retreat of some treatments that may have made it clear before the new technology shakes it. With acknowledging that Google allows to continue to pay against the default distribution sites of its search engine “can weaken the effectiveness of the treatments imposed”, it has already “allowed Google to continue paying payments is now more acceptable when the stage of responsibility has ended.” This is largely due to the fact that the well -funded startups finally show signs that they may disrupt the market to search on the Internet, a field that the previous technological insiders have described as the “largest flight ban zone” in project financing.

Leave the door to the door open to reconsider some of his treatments if his scalp approach fails to restore competition in online search. He said, “He is ready to reconsider the prohibition of payment (or less treatment) if the competition is not regained significantly through the treatments imposed by the court,” for example.

This is far from “Break ‘Up”, and politicians and invitation groups who have prompted the fight against technology in the past decade now penetrating the last Mihata rule as relentlessly. The CEO of the Open Markets Institute, Barry Lynn, said that the rule of Mihata “allows Google and every other monopolistic player that even the most terrible violation of the law will be a slap on the wrist.” “The imposition of responsibility in the name only is pure judicial cheese. This ruling leaves the unprotected public, the decisive and developed markets that focus, and worse, it sends a signal that blocks monopolies everywhere,” Nidhi Hegde said in a statement. The lawmakers, including Warren, who chanted “Break ‘Up” during its presidential presentation in 2020, called on the Ministry of Justice to appeal.

However, Gail Slater, head of the Ministry of Justice, struck a victorious tone in its statement regarding the ruling. “The first Trump administration filed a law against Google to regain competition for millions of Americans who were subjected to a monopoly Google violations,” she said in a statement. “Today, the second Trump administration won a treatment to do so.” Salter acknowledged that Mihita failed to grant all the treatments requested by the Ministry of Justice and said that it “will continue to review the opinion to consider the options of management and the following steps regarding the additional relief request.” But her comments were accused of the ruling as a judicial confirmation of “the need to restore competition to the long search market,” and announced, “Under the leadership of President Trump, the Ministry of Justice makes America competitive again.”

It seems that the Wall Street technology industry paints a different image. Google and its allies, who are still the basic judgment that he considered a monopoly, seemed restricted in their data. However, the price of Google shares 9 percent rose The next day of the ruling, avoid the worst scenario of the company’s cases in the eyes of its investors.

Other technology companies, such as Apple and Mozilla, breathe a sigh of sigh. Both will be They are allowed to keep profit search deals With Google to keep her default in her browsers. During the trial of treatments, a CEO of Mozilla warned against losing these revenues It will be existential for Firefox browserAnd Apple Eddy Cue CEO is likely framed Revenue made a pure loss of Apple that would mostly provide Google’s money. “It is encouraging to see the court aware of the risks of unintended consequences when trying to improve the research competition – not only for browsers like Firefox, but for the open web future,” Laura Chambers, temporary CEO of Mozilla Corporation, said in a statement.

While the lawyers through the technology industry digest the 230 -page Mihata rule for their actions, the defenders call the Ministry of Justice to appeal. Some even return to an option that seemed increasingly broken in recent years: Congress. “We believe that Congress should intervene now to make Google do what he fears more than others: competition for a level stadium,” Gabriel Winberg, CEO of DuckUCKGGGGO, said in a statement. Senator Amy Klopuwshar (D-Mn), from Previously presented a fundamental bill To prevent technology platforms from self -assignment their own products, use a moment of invitation to revive them. She said in a statement: “Today’s ruling is a reminder of Google’s sweeping power on the online economy, but the limited treatments that the court ordered explain why we need additional rules for large technology.”