Earlier last month, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in the remedies phase of the Google Search antitrust case, largely rejecting the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) extensive remedies proposals but still imposing some restrictions to address Google’s search monopoly. In a new insight, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy Jeffrey Westling and Aryan Mirchandani explain why lawmakers should be skeptical of calls for antitrust reform that fail to consider the wider competitive effects of firms’ practices and that would limit innovation in tech.

Key points:

• The court ruled that Google must share search data with its competitors over the next five years and cease contracts that gave the company’s applications default permissions on devices and platforms; yet the court did not grant the more intrusive and disruptive remedies sought by the DOJ, including the divestiture of Chrome and a limit on artificial intelligence investments.
• This ruling has prompted some critics to argue existing antitrust law fails to adequately regulate large technology companies, but proposals to expand the domain of antitrust law would dispense with the necessary examination of consumer effects and rigorous economic analysis currently required and would likely stifle U.S. technology innovation.
• As the artificial intelligence market grows and steadily becomes one of the largest and most impactful markets in the global landscape, proponents of stricter antitrust remedies for large tech companies should recognize that allowing large technology companies to innovate can often lead to greater consumer welfare in the long run, rather than strict regulations in times of great change.

Read the analysis.