Alphabet shares increase 8% as Google receives favorable antitrust ruling in historical case

The alphabet shares increased on Wednesday after a federal judge saved its Google subsidiary from a forced division in its historic antitrust battle-fueling a Wall Street rally that angry critics explode as an uninhabited card for Silicon Valley’s most powerful player.

Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Think Tank Monopoly open market institute, exploded the ruling, saying that “allows Google and any other monopolist to know that even the most outrageous violation of the law will meet a slap”.

Shares appeared 8% in early morning trading, adding tens of billions to market value within hours.

Apple also won nearly 4% while investors breathed from a relief that the ruling preserves a $ 20 billion flow of Google payments to make its search engine predetermined on the iPhone.

“This is a monster win for Cupertino and Google – it is a home -run decision that removes a large overload in stock,” Wedbush Tech Iva analyst wrote in a note to clients, raising his $ 245 price target.

US District Judge Ait Mehta decided on Tuesday that Google can hold his browser Chrome and the Android operating system, rejecting the Department of Justice for displacements.

Doj had argued those cement products stuck in search of Google, but Mehta said forced sales went too far.

Instead, the judge banned exclusive contracts that block rivals and ordered Google to share some of her price search data with competitors – a easier touch that the company greeted as pragmatic.

“After making a bold and morally brave decision to find Google responsible for illegal monopolistic practices, Judge Mehta apparently ruled that law enforcement was more than could fall,” Lynn said.

Google welcomed the ruling.

“This result preserves innovation and ensures that users continue to take advantage of the choice,” said a Google spokesman.

But the antitrust guards exploded, accusing Mehta of letting Google leave the blow, despite revealing last year that the company illegally monopolically monopoly searching online.

“You do not find someone guilty of stealing a bank and then his punishment to write a note of thanksgiving for the loot,” Fumoi Hegde of the American Economic Freedom Project.

“The responsibility of imposing on the name is only pure judicial coward.”

Matt Stoller, a long critic of Google, called the decision a “poor medicine” that allows Google to keep his monopoly intact. “

Doj said he was weighing if he were to appeal, arguing that even more drastic action could be needed to restore competition.

Meanwhile, Google is looking at the courtroom drama, betting on its Gemini artificial intelligence platform to strengthen the next search era – and using Android’s global achievement to push it into billions of smartphones.

The ruling may have captured a five-year legal battle, but the struggle for Google’s dominance is far away. On a special case of monopolies of advertising technology still pending, regulators and rivals are circulating, even when cash investors at the aid rally.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) Returned the ruling as “a reminder of Google’s comprehensive power” and renewed its push for the internet act of American innovation and election, saying that Congress should stop the predominant platforms from “stagnant innovation” and leaving competition in it.

Duckduckgo General Director Gabriel Weinberg was even more open.

“Google will be allowed to continue to use his monopoly to hold competitors, including in his search,” Weinberg said.

“As a result, customers will continue to suffer.”

The news/media alliance Danielle Coffey warned that publishers face a “winning scenario” as Google uses their job to train him without fair compensation, calling the ruling “a lost opportunity”.

The head of the technology supervision project Sacha Haworth said the judge “failed to meet this historic moment” by joining Google’s dominance in the generation.

Others defended the decision.

Matt Schruers of the Association of Computer Industry and Communications Association, an organization that has been partially funded by Google, said that DOJ had “exceeded”, and that Google’s obligation to share data is already posing risks of national intimacy and security.

Jessica Melugin from the Institute of Competitive Enterprises, which also receives funds from Google, called the ruling “wise” to avoid a division, though it asked how regulators will determine a “qualified competitor” in the data sharing mandate.

Business -backed groups like Netchoice and the Chamber of Progress estimated Mehta for resisting a structural division, arguing that the issue shows how antitrust law remains behind it.

The post has requested comment from Google.