Connect with us

News

US Judge Rules Google’s Online Search Monopoly Illegal

Published

on

US Judge Rules Google's Online Search Monopoly Illegal

In a landmark decision, a US judge has ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain its monopoly on online search and related advertising, dealing a significant blow to Alphabet, Google’s parent company. This decision could have far-reaching implications for how major technology companies conduct business.

The lawsuit, filed by the US Department of Justice in 2020, focused on Google’s control of approximately 90% of the online search market. It is part of a broader effort by US antitrust authorities to enhance competition in the tech industry through several lawsuits against big tech companies.

This case poses a potential existential threat to Google and Alphabet due to their dominance in the search and online advertising sectors. The penalties Google and Alphabet will face are yet to be determined, with fines or other remedies to be decided in a future hearing. The government has requested “structural relief,” which could theoretically involve breaking up the company.

Advertisement

US District Judge Amit Mehta noted in his 277-page opinion that Google paid billions to ensure its search engine remained the default on smartphones and browsers. “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta stated.

In response, Alphabet announced its plans to appeal the ruling. “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” the company said in a statement.

Federal antitrust regulators have also filed lawsuits against other Big Tech companies, including Meta Platforms (owner of Facebook), Amazon, and Apple, accusing them of maintaining unlawful monopolies.

Advertisement

The ruling follows a 10-week trial in Washington, DC, where prosecutors accused Google of spending billions annually to secure its position as the default search engine across platforms, such as Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla. The US government alleged that Google typically pays over $10 billion annually for this privilege, which provides access to user data critical for sustaining its market dominance.

Google’s defense argued that users are drawn to their search engine because of its usefulness and that Google invests in improving it for consumers. “Google is winning because it’s better,” said Google’s lawyer John Schmidtlein during closing arguments. He also contended that Google faces significant competition from other search engines like Microsoft’s Bing and specialized sites and apps used for specific searches, such as restaurants and flights.

In his ruling, Judge Mehta concluded that being the default search engine is “extremely valuable real estate” for Google.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Downing Street Indicates UK Would Arrest Netanyahu if He Visits

Published

on

Downing Street Indicates UK Would Arrest Netanyahu if He Visits

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could face arrest if he enters the United Kingdom, following an international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), according to indications from No 10.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declined to comment on the specifics of Netanyahu’s case but affirmed that the government is committed to fulfilling its “legal obligations.”

The ICC issued arrest warrants on Thursday for Netanyahu, alongside former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing alleged war crimes in Gaza. As a signatory to the ICC treaty, the UK is obligated to enforce such warrants.

Advertisement

Under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the UK government must transmit ICC arrest requests to a judicial officer, who then determines whether to endorse the warrant for execution within the country.

“The government would fulfil its obligations under the act and its legal obligations under both domestic and international law,” the spokesperson said, emphasizing the UK’s commitment to its treaty obligations.

When asked if Netanyahu would be detained upon arrival in the UK, the spokesperson refrained from commenting on “hypotheticals.” However, the legal framework leaves little room for discretion if a visit occurs, given the binding nature of the treaty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Judge Delays Sentencing for Donald Trump for the Third Time

Published

on

Judge Delays Sentencing for Donald Trump for the Third Time

A New York judge has delayed the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump for a third time as legal battles over his conviction remain unresolved. Trump’s attorneys continue to press for his conviction to be dismissed, citing presidential immunity and potential interference with his upcoming duties as president.

Originally scheduled for sentencing on November 26, Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony fraud charges. The Manhattan District Attorney, who led the prosecution, opposes efforts to overturn the conviction but has suggested delaying sentencing until after Trump’s second presidential term.

Justice Juan Merchan, presiding over the case, has paused all proceedings to review legal briefs from both sides. These submissions are due in December, but no new sentencing date has been set.

Advertisement

With Trump’s inauguration looming on January 20, the court faces increasing pressure to decide whether the conviction will stand or if sentencing will proceed.

Trump’s legal team argues that his conviction undermines the principle of presidential immunity, asserting that legal proceedings during his term would interfere with his ability to govern effectively. Critics, however, have pushed back, asserting that no one, including the president, is above the law.

This legal standoff marks another chapter in the contentious relationship between Trump and the judiciary, as the nation watches closely to see how the case unfolds in the lead-up to his second inauguration.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas Commander Over War Crimes

Published

on

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas Commander Over War Crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC’s pre-trial chamber stated that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe all three men bear responsibility for atrocities committed during the conflict between Israel and Hamas. These include allegations of murder, persecution, torture, and the use of starvation as a weapon of war.

For Netanyahu and Gallant, the charges stem from Israel’s military response to Hamas’s deadly October 7, 2023, attack, which left 1,200 Israelis dead and 251 abducted to Gaza. Gaza’s Hamas-led health ministry reports over 44,000 deaths during Israel’s subsequent military campaign.

Advertisement

The ICC accuses Deif, Hamas’s military leader, of orchestrating crimes such as murder, extermination, rape, and hostage-taking during the initial attack. Despite Israel’s claim that Deif was killed in an airstrike in July, the ICC included him in the warrants.

Reactions

  • Israel dismissed the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic” and reaffirmed its stance that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, as Israel is not a signatory to the ICC.
  • Hamas hailed the warrants for Israeli leaders as a “historic precedent,” while rejecting the charges against its own commander.
  • United States condemned the ICC’s actions, while European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called for respecting and implementing the court’s decisions.

The warrants raise questions about enforcement, as neither Israel nor Hamas recognize the ICC, and compliance depends on the court’s 124 member states. The development marks a pivotal moment in international law’s attempt to address the human toll of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.

Continue Reading

Trending