SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
open markets institute
Judge's Ruling on Google Search Monopoly Decried as 'Slap on the Wrist' for Tech Giant
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said one critic.
Sep 03, 2025
A federal judge's Tuesday ruling on tech giant Google has drawn criticism from anti-monopoly advocates who say that it let the company walk away without having to give up its economic stranglehold over online searches and advertising.
As reported by The New York Times, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had to share some of its data with competing search platforms, while also placing restrictions on the company's ability to pay to ensure its search engine receives preferential treatment on web browsers and phones.
However, these remedies fell far short of measures requested by the US Department of Justice, which had asked that Google be forced to share more of its data with competitors and to sell off its Chrome web browser.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a scathing assessment of Mehta's ruling, and she urged the government to appeal and push for harsher penalties against Google.
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," she said. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."
She went on to describe Mehta's decision as "bizarre" given that he had "found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era."
Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, accused Mehta of letting Google get away with a "slap on the wrist" given the scale of the damage it has caused.
"Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation, and rob Americans of their right to read, watch, and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history," he said. "Judge Mehta's order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs."
Like Hegde, Lynn also urged the government to appeal the ruling.
Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the freedom of expression advocacy group Public Knowledge, took aim at Mehta for letting Google maintain control of both Chrome and the Android mobile operating system, even though he concluded that Google had abused its market power to stifle competition.
Phillips also suggested that elected officials needed to pick up the slack when it comes to holding giant corporations accountable for their actions.
"Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," she said. "Google's anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice."
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of human rights organization Amnesty International, also weighed in to express disappointment with Mehta's decision.
"This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google's power," said Callamard. "Google's toxic business model is built on pervasive surveillance. By tracking people across the web and monetizing their personal data through targeted advertising, the company has severely undermined our right to privacy."
Google was first sued for antitrust violations by the DOJ in 2020 under the first Trump administration, and then again in 2023 under the Biden administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Coalition to FCC: Don't Ditch Checks on Corporate Media Consolidation
The 16 groups urge the agency "to uphold its obligation to promote competition, localism, and diversity in the U.S. media."
Aug 05, 2025
A coalition of 16 civil liberties, press freedom, and labor groups this week urged U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to abandon any plans to loosen media ownership restrictions and warned against opening the floodgates to further corporate consolidation.
Public comments on the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule were due to the Federal Communications Commission by Monday—which is when the coalition wrote to the FCC about the 39% national audience reach cap for U.S. broadcast media conglomerates, and how more mergers could negatively impact "the independence of the nation's press and the vitality of its local journalism."
"In our experience, the past 30 years of media consolidation have not fostered a better environment for local news and information. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 radically changed the radio and television broadcasting marketplace, causing rapid consolidation of radio station ownership," the coalition detailed. "Since the 1996 act, lawmakers and regulators have further relaxed television ownership limits, spurring further waves of station consolidation, the full harms of which are being felt by local newsrooms and the communities they serve."
The coalition highlighted how this consolidation has spread "across the entire news media ecosystem, including newspapers, online news outlets, and even online platforms," and led to "newsroom layoffs and closures, and the related spread of 'news deserts' across the country."
"Over a similar period, the economic model for news production has been undercut by technology platforms owned by the likes of Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, which have offered an advertising model for better targeting readers, listeners, and viewers, and attracted much of the advertising revenue that once funded local journalism," the coalition noted.
While "lobbyists working for large news media companies argue that further consolidation is the economic answer, giving them the size necessary to compete with Big Tech," the letter argues, "in fact, the opposite appears to be true."
We object."Handing even more control of the public airwaves to a handful of capitulating broadcast conglomerates undermines press freedom." - S. Derek TurnerOur statement: https://www.freepress.net/news/free-press-slams-trump-fccs-broadcast-ownership-proceeding-wildly-dangerous-democracy
[image or embed]
— Free Press (@freepress.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 12:58 PM
The letter points out that a recent analysis from Free Press—one of the groups that signed the letter—found a "pervasive pattern of editorial compromise and capitulation" at 35 of the largest media and tech companies in the United States, "as owners of massive media conglomerates seek to curry favor with political leadership."
That analysis—released last week alongside a Media Capitulation Index—makes clear that "the interests of wealthy media owners have become so inextricably entangled with government officials that they've limited their news operations' ability to act as checks against abuses of political power," according to the coalition.
In addition to warning about further consolidation and urging the FCC "to uphold its obligation to promote competition, localism, and diversity in the U.S. media," the coalition argued that the agency actually "lacks the authority to change the national audience reach cap," citing congressional action in 2004.
Along with Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, the letter is signed by leaders at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America, National Coalition Against Censorship, Local Independent Online News Publishers, Media Freedom Foundation, NewsGuild-CWA, Open Markets Institute, Park Center for Independent Media, Project Censored, Reporters Without Borders USA, Society of Professional Journalists, Tully Center for Free Speech, Whistleblower and Source Protection Program at ExposeFacts, and Writers Guild of America East and West.
Free Press also filed its own comments. In a related Tuesday statement, senior economic and policy adviser S. Derek Turner, who co-authored the filing, accused FCC Chair Brendan Carr of "placing a for-sale sign on the public airwaves and inviting media companies to monopolize the local news markets as long as they agree to display political fealty to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement."
"The price broadcast companies have to pay for consolidating further is bending the knee, and the line starts outside of the FCC chairman's office," said Turner. "Trump's autocratic demands seemingly have no bounds, and Carr apparently has no qualms about satisfying them. Carr's grossly partisan and deeply hypocritical water-carrying for Trump has already stained the agency, making it clear that this FCC is no longer independent, impartial, or fair."
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Counter Trump, Coalition Launches People's AI Action Plan
"The White House AI Action Plan is written by Big Tech interests invested in advancing AI that's used on us, not by us. Today, we are reclaiming agency over the trajectory AI will take."
Jul 22, 2025
In anticipation of U.S. President Donald Trump's Artificial Intelligence Action Plan, over 90 groups focused on consumer protection, economic and environmental justice, labor, and more came together Tuesday to call for an AI blueprint that "delivers on public well-being, shared prosperity, a sustainable future, and security for all."
"We can't let Big Tech and Big Oil lobbyists write the rules for AI and our economy at the expense of our freedom and equality, workers and families' well-being, even the air we breathe and the water we drink—all of which are affected by the unrestrained and unaccountable rollout of AI," says the coalition's website for the new People's AI Action Plan.
"The American people need good, stable jobs, functioning public institutions, safe online spaces for children, and clean, affordable, safe, and reliable energy," the site says. "The American economy needs robust innovation, a level playing field for all, and relief from the tech monopolies who repeatedly sacrifice the interests of everyday people for their own profits."
The site features "actionable ideas for an AI agenda that meets the needs of everyday people," highlighting campaigns and reports from coalition members, including Accountable Tech, AI Now Institute, Color of Change, Demand Progress Education Fund, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Friends of the Earth, MediaJustice, National Nurses United, New Disabled South, Open Markets Institute, and Public Citizen.
The 90+ organizations supporting a People's AI Action Plan all have concrete, actionable ideas for an AI agenda that furthers the interests of everyday people and challenges the tech billionaire agenda we’ll see from the White House. Learn more about them: peoplesaiaction.com
[image or embed]
— EPIC (@epic.org) July 22, 2025 at 11:46 AM
"The White House AI Action Plan is written by Big Tech interests invested in advancing AI that's used on us, not by us," said AI Now Institute co-executive directors Sarah Myers West and Amba Kak in a statement. "Today, we are reclaiming agency over the trajectory AI will take: It's time for a People's Action Plan for AI that puts the needs of everyday Americans over corporate profits."
Trump started the process for his AI Action Plan with a January executive order. It is expected to be released on Wednesday.
Citing unnamed sources, Axios reported last week that "the plan largely lays out the Trump administration's aspirations for AI, some of which officials have already stated, including: promoting innovation, reducing regulatory burdens, and overhauling permitting."
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy spokesperson Victoria LaCivita said in an email to Axios that it "will deliver a strong, specific, and actionable federal policy roadmap that goes beyond the details reported here and we look forward to releasing it soon."
According to Monday reporting from Politico, "The AI Action Plan will include cutting back environmental requirements and streamlining permitting policies to make it easier to build data centers and power infrastructure."
Also on Monday, Nextgov/FCW—which obtained documents and spoke with unnamed sources—reported that "Trump plans to sign three AI-focused executive orders in the runup to the release of the administration's sweeping AI Action Plan."
"Each order focuses on one of three aspects of artificial intelligence regulation and policy that the administration has prioritized: spearheading AI-ready infrastructure; establishing and promoting a U.S. technology export regime; and ensuring large language models are not generating 'woke' or otherwise biased information," according to Nextgov/FCW.
Experts will tell you: The growth of AI doesn't have to mean Big Tech + Big Oil write the rules as they have for this White House. It does not have to mean less freedom + equality. Or more pollution + scarcity. Join us in putting people first in AI: peoplesaiaction.com
[image or embed]
— Open Markets Institute (@openmarkets.bsky.social) July 22, 2025 at 11:06 AM
J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at Public Citizen, stressed on Tuesday that "AI is already harming workers, consumers, and communities—and instead of enforcing guardrails, this administration is gutting oversight."
Branch pointed to a recent vote in the U.S. Senate to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation of AI for a decade from Republicans' budget reconciliation package, which Trump signed on July 4.
"After the AI moratorium was defeated 99-1 under massive public pressure, the message from the public was clear: No more handouts for Trump's tech bro buddies," Branch said. "We need rules and accountability—not a Silicon Valley free-for-all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular