No, the actual remedy is not yet decided in detail (though sharing some search data is going to be part of it), this ruling was basically setting some parameters of what is on and off the table and then ordering the parties to meet on details before further court action.

▲

makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It basically rules out structural remedies, so what's left is pinky promises of not misbehaving again. Whatever these promises are, that closes the case for me.

▲

azemetre 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Unless the remedy is that Google's online ads has to be spun out into a separate company away from their control, I don't see how any remedy can be effective.

What can honestly be done to punish them? I mean punish too, certain entities of Google should not exist.

▲

george_perez 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's actually a separate case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

	▲	jpadkins 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That case is about Google's publisher ad tech product (Google Ad Manager), not search ads (which was covered in Judge Mehta's ruling today).

▲

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This article and ruling relate to the search antitrust case, not the adtech antitrust case.

	▲	azemetre 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think my worry is that Google should be getting two arms chopped off instead of one finger.