‘An historic failure’ or a new opportunity? Industry reacts to Google’s search monopoly remedies
“An historic failure”.
That is how advocacy group Movement for an Open Web (MOW) reacted to the decision by US judge Amit Mehta, released Tuesday evening, that Google will not have to sell its Chrome browser as a remedy to its monopoly over the search market.
Rather, Mehta ruled the tech giant will have to share data with rivals and cannot enter into exclusive contracts with smart-phone firms.
Will the decision lead to meaningful change, or does it uphold the status quo by affirming Google’s position as a gatekeeper of the web?
What has been ruled?
Judge Mehta’s decision delivered a disappointing blow to the US government, which had pressed for stronger remedies and demanded Google sell Chrome as a resolution to a five-year legal battle over Google’s monopoly of online search.
The search giant has been prohibited from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and the Gemini app.
It has also been ordered to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals.
Finally, it has been forced to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete, with the aim that this will open up the market.
Last year, Judge Mehta ruled that Google had used unfair methods to establish an illegal monopoly over the online search market and related advertising.
In 2021, it was revealed at trial that Google had paid more than $26bn to firms such as Apple and Mozilla to exclusively pre-load or promote its products over other search engines.
Notably, it was ruled Google could keep its Android operating system, which along with Chrome, helps drive Google’s market-dominating online advertising business.
Analysis: What does the ruling mean for advertisers?
Judge Mehta’s decision not to impose the sale of Chrome has sparked controversy — with advocates arguing Google got off lightly.
A spokesperson for MOW underlined: “The failure to force the divestiture of Chrome is a missed opportunity to deliver real public interest benefits and the proposed technical remedies around data sharing and exclusive agreements are insufficient to create real change. Google will continue to pay Apple, and the telcos, billions for ‘non-exclusive’ placement so that these partners won’t have any incentive to compete.”
Mateusz Rumiński, VP of product at digital audience provider PrimeAudience, acknowledged to The Media Leader the ruling “is less of a burden on Google than many expected it to be, with the sale of Android or Chrome now out of the question.”
Rumiński did however point to the impact and security this offers to advertisers who rely on cookies, as he highlighted how a third party acquirer of the product would have had less of an incentive to keep third-party cookies than Google does.
Google’s third-party cookies provide useful insights for advertisers in tracking user behaviour across the web, which enables targeted, personalised campaigns and performance measurement.
“[The ruling] will lower the barrier for entry for competitors in the search or generative AI space,” added Rumiński. “However, the question remains as to whether this data will find its way into the adtech ecosystem to improve targeted personalisation.”
Still, with no requirement that Google show a search engine choice screen in the Chrome browser, “Google’s default position is expected to be preserved,” Rumiński added.
Despite this, the focus within the ruling on data access and dismantling exclusivity does have the potential to directly impact competition within the digital ad industry.
“Coming at it from the perspective of an agency spending millions of dollars for our brands inside the Google ecosystem, I can’t help being curious about what this update might mean for auction competition, CPCs (cost-per-clicks), and measurement,” said Liam Wade, director of performance at performance marketing agency Impression. “Even small changes in defaults or data access could have ripple effects on how advertisers and internet users navigate the digital ecosystem.”
News, analysis, comment and community — Join The Media Leader
AI’s role in the decision
The impact generative AI has likely had on the ruling is also worth considering. When the case was originally filed against Google in 2020, AI search was not yet available to consumers, let alone popularly used as a tool for information gathering.
The development has impacted the search engine market significantly, and led to Judge Mehta approaching the case of imposing remedies with “humility.”
Google’s dominance over search has been and continues to face threats due to the rise in popularity of new competitors, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
OpenAI is reportedly close to releasing an AI-powered web browser that could directly compete with Chrome and thus put pressure on Google. Google has itself pushed into generative AI search through the rollout of its AI Overviews and AI Mode features, the latter of which released in the UK at the end of July.
As Will Hanmer-Lloyd, head of Behave and strategy at independent agency Mediaplus UK, previously described to The Media Leader: “Search behaviour is just not going to be so dominated by google anymore.”
Hanmer-Lloyd noted that between AI search competitors and the rising usage of social platforms like TikTok and Reddit for search queries, Google is having to fight for its growth more today than it has for years.
It is plausible that, if granted access to the data Google is required to share, AI companies could strengthen their chatbot developments and utilise this data for AI search engines and web browsers, resulting in potential greater diversification of choice, focus and strategy for advertisers and publishers.
Google is also not out of the regulatory woods — the tech giant is slated to go to trial later this month to decide how to remedy its monopoly over the adtech market.