{"id":117104,"title":"U.S. weighs potential break-up of Google in landmark online search case","publisher":"Share Talk","author":"sharetalk","published":"2024-10-09T09:37:56+00:00","modified":"2024-10-09T09:37:56+00:00","canonical_url":"https://www.share-talk.com/u-s-weighs-potential-break-up-of-google-in-landmark-online-search-case/","markdown_url":"https://www.share-talk.com/u-s-weighs-potential-break-up-of-google-in-landmark-online-search-case.md","json_url":"https://www.share-talk.com/u-s-weighs-potential-break-up-of-google-in-landmark-online-search-case.json","category":"B2B","categories":["B2B","Blogs","Business & Support Services","Technology","Technology, Media & Telecoms"],"tags":["Amit Mehta","browser","chrome","global","Google","INTERNET","Judge","Market","monopoly","online search","search","Search Engine","U.S. Department of Justice","U.S. District Court"],"featured_image":"https://i0.wp.com/www.share-talk.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/google.webp?fit=1200%2C800&quality=80&ssl=1","format":"news","language":"en-GB","content":"The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that Google could face a potential breakup following a landmark case that determined it had created an illegal monopoly over online search.\n\nAccording to the DoJ, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, may be required to divest parts of its business, including its Chrome browser and Android operating system. This follows an August ruling by Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.\n\nIt found that Google had unfairly blocked competitors by paying $26 billion to secure its position as the default search engine on smartphones and web browsers.\n\nThe Justice Department said, “Fully remedying these harms requires ending Google’s control of distribution today and ensuring it cannot control future distribution.”\n\nGoogle, which commands over 90% of the global internet search market, announced its intention to appeal. In a corporate blog post, the company called the proposals “radical” and argued they “go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”"}