Decision in Google Search Case Avoids Worst Pitfalls, But Is Still Flawed, ITIF Says

WASHINGTON—Following a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the remedies phase of the Justice Department’s case challenging agreements Google made to be the default search engine for third-party browsers and Android equipment manufacturers, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released the following statement from Joseph V. Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy:

The court’s decision to reject the Justice Department’s radical bid to break up Google was the right one. However, the decision errs by imposing a problematic series of data-sharing and syndication remedies under the guise of denying Google the supposed fruits of its violation. First, there is no clear reason why the remedies are tailored to fit their purpose. Second, requiring Google to share critical data will also chill innovation and put consumer privacy at risk. 

While Judge Mehta’s decision rightly allows Google to pay Apple and other partners to preload search, the court’s remedy places contractual restrictions on Chrome that go beyond what was necessary to restore competition.

Google should appeal not only today’s decision on remedies, but also the previous underlying merits decision that found Google’s default search agreements to be anticompetitive. In the long run, today’s decision may prove to be at best a pyrrhic victory for the DOJ in its long-running antitrust crusade against Google.