Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Skip to content Skip to footer

Google search monopoly

Google search monopoly

The tech world is closely watching a US judge’s ruling that Google illegally monopolizes online search and related advertising. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is expected to appeal, ensuring a prolonged legal battle. The ruling’s potential consequences range from hefty fines to complex structural remedies.

Potential Outcomes

Breaking Up Google

One drastic remedy could be breaking Google into smaller entities. Although Google encompasses much more than search engines such as Android and YouTube, the judge could mandate that the search engine operates independently. This scenario likely leads to years of litigation but remains a significant possibility.

Limiting Default Search Payments

The US government argues that Google’s practice of paying companies like Apple as the default search engine stifles competition. If restricted, companies might be motivated to develop their search engines, though Google’s strong brand recognition poses a challenge.

Introducing Choice Screens

A more feasible remedy is implementing choice screens, where users select their preferred search engine upon opening a browser for the first time. This approach, already in use in the EU, might help level the playing field. However, due to Google’s established reliability, it is unlikely to cause mass migration away from it.

Historical Context and Future Implications

Google’s situation draws parallels to Microsoft’s antitrust case in 1999, which resulted in prolonged legal battles and eventual settlements. Any significant changes to Google’s structure or practices will similarly take years to materialize.

The ruling could pave the way for future regulatory demands, particularly regarding Google’s search market dominance.

Conclusion

While the legal process will extend over several years, the ruling against Google is pivotal in regulating tech giants’ influence. The future will reveal whether these measures will foster a more competitive landscape or maintain the status quo.


For more tech news and insights, visit Rwanda Tech News, and explore similar topics and trends in the world of technology. 

Sign Up to Our Newsletter

Be the first to know the latest updates