But the company has been ordered to share data with others to help open up competition.

Summary

  • A US judge has ruled that Google doesn’t need to sell off its Android operating system or its Chrome browser in a monopoly case

  • However, the tech giant has been ordered to share data with competitors to help open up competition in online search

  • The judgment follows a finding that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search

  • Google was sued by the US Department of Justice in 2020 over its control of about 90% of the online search market

  • Prosecutors accused Google of spending billions of dollars annually to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla and others to be pre-installed as the default search engine

  • The US said Google typically pays more than $10bn (£7.8bn) a year for that privilege

  • Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    11 days ago

    Only option is moving away from American products/services whenever possible.

    Many places are corrupt, it would be wrong to judge the citizens of such countries (things can change), but with the US it’s pretty obvious that there minimal interest in anti-crime reform, judicial reform and real anti corruption programs.

    • biscuit@lemdro.idOPEnglish
      4·
      10 days ago

      Respectfully, what are you going on about?

      The EU and UK antitrusts also came to the same conclusion as the US.

      • Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 days ago

        Life is a bit more complicated than that, although I would be curious to learn about the alleged similarity in responses from different competition agencies.

        Considering the current the state of American society any independent anti trust actions is likely to followed by disproportional threats.

      • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        9 days ago

        He’s talking about the facade of freedom, justice, and choice falling off the cliff when they’re losing influence on the global scale. Breaking off a surveillance monopoly reduces their reach or makes it more complicated, so they decided not to. antitrust or whatever.

        EU and UK are part of the same surveillance pact, if you didn’t know, so its on point why they would reach the same conclusion.