While Google celebrated its court victory this week, a chorus of critics, competitors, and antitrust advocates decried the ruling as a mere “slap on the wrist.” Their argument is that the remedies imposed by the court fail to address the root causes of Google’s illegal monopoly, ensuring its dominance will continue.
The central point of criticism is the decision to allow Google’s multi-billion dollar payments to Apple and other distributors to continue. Critics contend these “pay-for-default” schemes are the primary mechanism by which Google locks out competition. By leaving this system intact, the court has, in their view, failed to restore a level playing field.
Competitors like DuckDuckGo argue that without access to default positions on major platforms, it’s nearly impossible to gain the scale needed to challenge Google, regardless of product quality. They see the other remedies, like data sharing, as helpful but secondary to the core problem of distribution.
This “slap on the wrist” perspective views the judge’s reliance on future AI competition as a cop-out. It argues that the court should have acted decisively to fix the proven, existing harm of the monopoly, rather than hoping a new technology will eventually solve the problem. The debate over the ruling’s adequacy will likely fuel calls for stronger antitrust legislation from Congress.