Three losses, little consequence

This is the third of three Google antitrust cases to reach a conclusion. While there still may be some legal wrangling over the exact nature of the advertising remedies, Google is emerging from this era of legal uncertainty largely unscathed.

The DOJ’s other case against Google, which was focused on search, resulted in another loss for the company. The case wrapped up last year when the government failed to convince a judge that Google should have to sell off its Chrome browser. In that case, Google was ordered to make search data available to competitors and stop requiring its partners to distribute Google apps on mobile devices. Google, of course, objected to all of this, but that’s not a bad outcome when the company was looking at the possibility of losing control of the world’s most popular browser.

The other antitrust case was brought by Epic Games, which alleged that Google had used its control of Android and the Play Store to suppress alternative app stores and keep prices high for consumers. Google lost this one, too, but Epic didn’t get everything it wanted. The remedies are limited to the US, and Google maintains control over app vetting. Still, of the three antitrust cases, this may lead to the biggest changes in how Google does business.

After attempting to settle with Epic to avoid distributing third-party app stores, Google had to follow through with that part of the judge’s order several weeks ago. It has also lowered Play Store fees and permitted developers to use alternative payment platforms.

After all these years of hearings, appeals, and decisions, Google’s market power will remain largely unchanged going forward. That frees the company up to try to build new monopolies in AI, and the current DOJ doesn’t seem very interested in standing in the way of Big Tech.