Google is gearing up for a lengthy appeal process following a federal judge’s antitrust ruling of September against the company. In a recent interview on Bloomberg’s “The David Rubenstein Show” Google CEO Sundar Pichai broke his silence on the search engine antitrust case, marking his first public comments since the Department of Justice submitted proposed remedies. Pichai’s appearance signals Google’s determination to contest the ruling, setting the stage for a prolonged and closely watched legal battle.
Sundar Pichai acknowledged the inevitability of regulatory scrutiny due to the company’s vast scale and size.
“With our scale and size, I think scrutiny is inevitable,” Pichai told host David Rubenstein.
During the interview, Pichai expressed disagreement with US District Judge Amit Mehta’s antitrust ruling and outlined Google’s plans to contest it.
He emphasised that the legal process is ongoing, stating, “We’re still in the middle of the remedies phase, and we will appeal, and this process will likely take many years.“
Pichai offered an alternative perspective on Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling, which labelled Google a “monopolist.“
“Monopolist” label aside, Pichai views the ruling as recognition of Google’s innovative success. Pichai emphasised that Google’s excellence drives competitor acknowledgment. “competitors acknowledge that we are the best search engine in the world.“
Federal prosecutors dropped a bombshell on Monday, hinting at far-reaching consequences for Google. The government, they indicated, will propose “behavioural and structural remedies,” which could necessitate Google’s breakup or significant restructuring.
Prosecutors have outlined a timeline for resolving the antitrust case against Google. They are scheduled to submit a final proposed judgement to the court in November, with revisions expected to be completed by March.
Ultimately, Judge Amit Mehta will determine the specific orders Google must adhere to in order to promote competition in the search market. However, Google has already signalled its intention to appeal the ruling, indicating a prolonged legal battle ahead.
