Update: Google Doesn’t Have to Sell Chrome After All – But Competitors Are to Be Granted Access to Parts of the Web Index
In the antitrust case against Google, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has ruled: Google will not be broken up. Google does not have to divest itself of its Chrome web browser or the Android operating system. Furthermore, as before, Google may continue to pay other companies to have its services, such as Search, Chrome, and Gemini, pre-installed in those companies’ services. Unlike in Europe, end users in the U.S. do not have to be explicitly asked which search engine or browser they wish to use.
The court did not ban Google’s practice of paying partners to offer Google services on their products. However, unlike in the past, Google is no longer allowed to secure exclusivity through contractual agreements. Preinstalling Google services in exchange for payment is a key source of revenue for many companies. If this were to disappear, Google’s (potential) competitors would be financially weakened, which could ultimately harm consumers as well.
To remedy the identified antitrust violation, the court has ordered Google to share certain data from its search engine with third parties, such as other search engine operators and AI developers, for at least six years. This includes, among other things, parts of the Google index. Access to this data is intended to promote the development and establishment of competing products. Access to relevant data is often the biggest hurdle for new entrants.
It is not yet clear exactly how access to data from the search engine will be structured or what specific data will be involved. During the oral hearing, it was suggested that the court might base its ruling on data access on the provisions of the European Digital Markets Act. According to these provisions, providers classified as “gatekeepers” in Europe must grant their competitors access to ranking, query, click, and view data under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (Art. 6 XI of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925). However, the court’s decision falls short of this regulation.
The course of the case was influenced by the emergence of artificial intelligence. The court cited the constant evolution of markets driven by advances in AI as the reason for not breaking up Google. In the court’s view, new AI providers such as OpenAI would push Google back.
The court instructed the parties to negotiate how the court’s decision can be implemented. Google has also already announced its intention to appeal the decision.
Es werden also noch Jahre vergehen, bis dieser Fall endgültig geklärt wird. Umso wichtiger bleibt es, eine europäischeAlternative zum Google-Index aufzubauen. Dies ist Gegenstand des Projekts „OpenWebSearch.EU“. Es basiert auf einem werteorientierten Ansatz und stellt kommerzielle Interessen in den Hintergrund. Das Projekt PriDI untersucht rechtliche Aspekte eines offenen Webindex, wie er zur Zeit von OpenWebSearch.EU entwickelt wird.
Charlotte Werther, LL.M., is a lawyer and research associate at the Open Search Foundation e.V. As part of the PriDI project, she focuses on designing an open search infrastructure that complies with fundamental rights.
