Core Viewpoint - A federal judge is expected to target Google's multibillion-dollar search engine deals with companies like Apple as part of a remedy for its illegal online search monopoly, which could lead to significant changes for the tech giant valued at $1.8 trillion [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Potential Outcomes - US District Judge Amit Mehta will determine the remedies for Google following a ruling that it violated US antitrust law by maintaining a monopoly in its online search business [2]. - The Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking to force Google to end its exclusive agreements with companies like Apple and potentially divest its Chrome web browser if competition does not increase in the search market [3][6]. - Experts believe that the judge will likely order Google to stop paying for exclusive default status with companies, which could significantly impact its business model [4][5]. Group 2: Financial Implications - In 2021, Google paid over $26 billion for search placement deals, with $20 billion going to Apple in 2022 to secure its position as the default search engine on Safari [6]. - The DOJ's proposed remedies are seen as substantial, with the potential for significant changes to Google's financial arrangements and market strategies [9]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Competition - Google's exclusivity deals with companies like Apple are viewed as attempts to control the market and suppress competition, making them a focal point for the DOJ's case [8]. - The DOJ aims to prevent Google from leveraging its search monopoly to dominate emerging markets, such as AI, indicating a broader concern about competitive practices [13]. Group 4: Company Responses - Google's legal team has characterized the DOJ's proposed remedies as a "wish list" for competitors, arguing that they would undermine the company's innovations and user experience [11]. - Google has expressed concerns that the DOJ's proposals could jeopardize user privacy and security, as well as hinder its AI development efforts [12].

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Credit: cottonbro studio from Pexels Of course, Google has an unlawful monopoly on online ads, as a federal judge found Thursday, just like a different federal judge found last year that Google has an unlawful monopoly on online searching; everyone knows that "googling" means online search. A market economy only works if there ...

Google has been dealt another major blow by a federal judge. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Virginia ruled on Thursday that Google holds an illegal monopoly in advertising technology. "For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets," Brinkema wrote.The judge said that Google further cemented its monopoly power in t ...

Core Points - Google is facing a class action lawsuit in the U.K. for over £5 billion ($6.6 billion) due to allegations of abusing its dominant position in the online search market [1] - The lawsuit claims that Google restricted competing search engines, reinforcing its monopoly and making it the sole viable option for online search advertising [1][2] - The case is brought by competition law academic Or Brook on behalf of numerous U.K.-based organizations that utilized Google's search advertising services since January 1, 2011 [2] - Brook stated that U.K. businesses have limited choices but to use Google ads for advertising, highlighting the company's monopoly status [3] - The lawsuit aims to hold Google accountable for overcharging advertisers and seeks compensation for U.K. advertisers who have been affected [4]

Company Overview - ASML holds a dominant position in the DUV equipment market with approximately 90% market share, indicating a practical monopoly in this segment, which can also be characterized as an oligopoly due to the presence of competitors like Canon and Nikon [1] Investment Perspective - The company is viewed favorably by long-term investors, with a focus on compounding knowledge and strategic investment approaches [1]