Federal judge narrows scope of antitrust case against Google ahead of trial

Google has just won a partial stay in one of the antitrust cases brought against the company. Federal Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and key states cannot claim that Google is protecting a monopoly by promoting its own products in search results over alternatives. The plaintiffs have not proven the existence of an "anti-competitive effect", according to the decision. Judge Mehta also dismissed antitrust claims regarding Android compatibility and anti-fragmentation agreements, Google Assistant, Internet of Things devices, and the Android Open Source Project.

The DOJ can still make its remaining arguments, Judge Mehta says. Notably, officials say Google is abusing its power through deals that force Android makers to preload Google apps and make Google the default search engine in their mobile browsers. The DOJ and states fear this will prevent rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo from being widely adopted.

In a statement to Engadget, Google's president of global affairs, Kent Walker, said the company welcomes the judge's "careful consideration" in dismissing the search issues. He argues that people choose Google only "because it's helpful" and that the company would demonstrate at trial that its other practices are both competitive and legal. We've asked the DOJ for comment and we'll let you know if we have a response.

The DOJ and partner states filed the lawsuit in 2020. They weren't advocating specific penalties at the time, but penalties could include fines, trade restrictions, and splitting divisions into separate companies. At the time, Google defended itself by arguing that it still had to negotiate partnerships and that it had competitors from services like Twitter (now X) and Expedia.

This isn't the only antitrust case against Google, including in the United States. An alliance of states sued Google in 2020 over allegedly anti-competitive advertising prices. However, the restricted scope could make the case more difficult, not to mention limit the potential damages.