Now we know why democrats lost

Now we know why democrats lost the election.

The DOJ-Google Fight Comes Into Focus. Why It's Finally Hitting Alphabet's Stock

Alphabet's Stock Drops as Feds Push for Chrome Sale

Shares of Alphabet Inc. dropped 5.4% after the U.S. Department of Justice proposed a breakup of Google's search business, urging the sale of Chrome browser and changes to Android software. The stock's selloff is the biggest in 10 months. Prior to the selloff, the stock had gained 2% since the report of a potential Chrome sale. The outcome of the sale is uncertain, as it is unclear if the incoming Trump administration will continue to push for it. Alphabet's stock has rallied 19.2% year to date.

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap

Leave a comment

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":373543719842000,"tweetId":"373543719842000","gmtCreate":1732237062466,"gmtModify":1732239466422,"author":{"id":3574807189087941,"idStr":"3574807189087941","authorId":3574807189087941,"authorIdStr":"3574807189087941","name":"Icywinddale","avatar":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/3bd2fbf9d90e26b2f600b2c5d7c54244","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[{"themeId":"3beaf009d66cc5110543eb5e4fd2574c","categoryId":"2929bb7468f5415f853fd96fb35d7c3b","name":"Alphabet's Stock Drops as Feds Push for Chrome Sale","type":2,"rnLink":"https://laohu8.com/RN?name=RNTheme&page=/theme/special/finance&rndata={\"themeId\":3beaf009d66cc5110543eb5e4fd2574c}&rnconfig={\"headerBarHidden\": true}","description":"Shares of Alphabet Inc. dropped 5.4% after the U.S. Department of Justice proposed a breakup of Google's search business, urging the sale of Chrome browser and changes to Android software. The stock's selloff is the biggest in 10 months. Prior to the selloff, the stock had gained 2% since the report of a potential Chrome sale. The outcome of the sale is uncertain, as it is unclear if the incoming Trump administration will continue to push for it. Alphabet's stock has rallied 19.2% year to date."}],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"html":"<html><head></head><body>Now we know why democrats lost the election.</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Now we know why democrats lost the election.</body></html>","text":"Now we know why democrats lost the election.","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/373543719842000","repostId":2485444956,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2485444956","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Dow Jones publishes the world’s most trusted business news and financial information in a variety of media.","home_visible":0,"media_name":"Dow Jones","id":"106","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/150f88aa4d182df19190059f4a365e99"},"pubTimestamp":1732232749,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2485444956?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2024-11-22 07:45","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"The DOJ-Google Fight Comes Into Focus. Why It's Finally Hitting Alphabet's Stock","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2485444956","media":"Dow Jones","summary":"The U.S. Department of Justice has aggressively pursued Google as a monopolist in recent years, going back to the first Trump administration. And it's gotten a federal judge to rule in its favor.But the DOJ's full intentions weren't fully clear until late last night when the department filed specific remedies that it would like to see the U.S. District judge impose. The DOJ is out for a pound of flesh.An end to search payments: The payments that Google makes to be the default on mobile devices were at the heart of the DOJ's case. Most prominent among these are Google's payouts to Apple, which were pegged at $20 billion in 2022 during the trail. That number represented 16% of Google's cost-of-revenue. But they're also material to Apple, comprising 5% of its 2022 revenue. Assuming that stream of payments all falls to the bottom line, it would have been roughly 21% of Apple's net income that year.The ban goes beyond third-party payments. The DOJ has said it wants to stop Google from using","content":"<html><head></head><body>The U.S. Department of Justice has aggressively pursued Google as a monopolist in recent years, going back to the first Trump administration. And it&#39;s gotten a federal judge to rule in its favor.But the DOJ&#39;s full intentions weren&#39;t fully clear until late last night when the department filed specific remedies that it would like to see the U.S. District judge impose. The DOJ is out for a pound of flesh.While media reports had telegraphed the government&#39;s demand to sever Chrome and Android from Google, the filing went much further. The government has a set of demands that go deeply into the way Google does business, and it seems to be spooking investors. Until now, shares of Google-parent Alphabet have largely escaped regulatory worry. But on Thursday, the stock was down 4.7%.<img src=\"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/2347baa2536c44f072e18ffba04106cc\" tg-width=\"790\" tg-height=\"845\"/>Here&#39;s why investors are nervous:An end to search payments: The payments that Google makes to be the default on mobile devices were at the heart of the DOJ&#39;s case. Most prominent among these are Google&#39;s payouts to Apple, which were pegged at $20 billion in 2022 during the trail. That number represented 16% of Google&#39;s cost-of-revenue. But they&#39;re also material to Apple, comprising 5% of its 2022 revenue. Assuming that stream of payments all falls to the bottom line, it would have been roughly 21% of Apple&#39;s net income that year.It&#39;s not clear how Apple would replace that income, though, for now investors don&#39;t seem particularly worried. Apple shares were up slightly on Wednesday.Google also makes payments to Android smartphone providers to ensure its software is preloaded on phones, and that its search is the default option. If the DOJ gets its way, those payments would also be banned.These payments to the smartphone makers and others are what Google calls its &#34;traffic acquisition costs.&#34; They totaled $40 billion in the first nine months of 2024, or 38% of Google&#39;s cost of revenue. If the company was banned from making these payments, Alphabet&#39;s gross margins would rise substantially immediately. On the downside, without the payments, Google could lose search market share, thereby limiting advertising revenue down the road. That impact is long-term and uncertain.The ban goes beyond third-party payments. The DOJ has said it wants to stop Google from using its search engine as the default option on its own line of Pixel smartphones.The DOJ wants the keys to the castle: The DOJ&#39;s proposed remedy would force Google to share its most important data with rivals, including well-heeled ones like Microsoft. One of Google&#39;s primary advantages would be lost -- its treasure trove of exclusive data, including its search index, ad data, and user data. These large data sets are the foundation of Google&#39;s success.The Enforcement: Perhaps the most intrusive part of the proposal is the DOJ&#39;s recommendation to create a technical committee that would oversee Google&#39;s compliance with the judge&#39;s ruling. The committee would be composed of five members, with a nomination process that almost guarantees the government would control a majority of the committee.The group would have broad powers to oversee Google, including interviewing employees, and accessing all documents, servers, and employee devices on request. The committee would also get to see Google&#39;s source code and algorithms, Google&#39;s most prized intellectual property.If the DOJ gets its way, most of the remedies would be in place for 10 years.On Thursday, Google had a blunt response to the government&#39;s proposals: &#34;DOJ had a chance to propose remedies related to the issue in this case, &#34; the company said in a blog post. &#34;Instead, DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America&#39;s global technology leadership.&#34;Next up: The court is scheduled to decide on the penalty phase of the Google trial in April, with a final ruling due in August. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta could choose to reject some or all of the DOJ&#39;s suggested remedies.Any actual enforcement could take years to play out. Google has already declared that it will appeal, and Mehta could decide to stay any remedies during the appeal, a process that could stretch out for years.The wild card: In the meantime, there is a new administration coming to the White House in January, and new appointees at the DOJ. Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ&#39;s lead on its cases against Google, will likely be replaced. But it&#39;s important to remember that this case originated in 2020 under the first Trump administration and it includes 49 states as co-plaintiffs. Most of these states have Republican Attorneys General.No one knows how a new DOJ would handle the case.Many on Wall Street remain doubtful the DOJ&#39;s proposal will come to fruition.&#34;We do not see a breakup in the next few years,&#34; Dan Ives of Wedbush told Barron&#39;s on Thursday. &#34;We see business model tweaks and also a much different tone from the Trump administration around Big Tech on the horizon.&#34;</body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The DOJ-Google Fight Comes Into Focus. Why It's Finally Hitting Alphabet's Stock</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe DOJ-Google Fight Comes Into Focus. Why It's Finally Hitting Alphabet's Stock\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<div class=\"head\" \">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/150f88aa4d182df19190059f4a365e99);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\nDow Jones \n2024-11-22 07:45\n</div>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body>The U.S. Department of Justice has aggressively pursued Google as a monopolist in recent years, going back to the first Trump administration. And it&#39;s gotten a federal judge to rule in its favor.But the DOJ&#39;s full intentions weren&#39;t fully clear until late last night when the department filed specific remedies that it would like to see the U.S. District judge impose. The DOJ is out for a pound of flesh.While media reports had telegraphed the government&#39;s demand to sever Chrome and Android from Google, the filing went much further. The government has a set of demands that go deeply into the way Google does business, and it seems to be spooking investors. Until now, shares of Google-parent Alphabet have largely escaped regulatory worry. But on Thursday, the stock was down 4.7%.<img src=\"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/2347baa2536c44f072e18ffba04106cc\" tg-width=\"790\" tg-height=\"845\"/>Here&#39;s why investors are nervous:An end to search payments: The payments that Google makes to be the default on mobile devices were at the heart of the DOJ&#39;s case. Most prominent among these are Google&#39;s payouts to Apple, which were pegged at $20 billion in 2022 during the trail. That number represented 16% of Google&#39;s cost-of-revenue. But they&#39;re also material to Apple, comprising 5% of its 2022 revenue. Assuming that stream of payments all falls to the bottom line, it would have been roughly 21% of Apple&#39;s net income that year.It&#39;s not clear how Apple would replace that income, though, for now investors don&#39;t seem particularly worried. Apple shares were up slightly on Wednesday.Google also makes payments to Android smartphone providers to ensure its software is preloaded on phones, and that its search is the default option. If the DOJ gets its way, those payments would also be banned.These payments to the smartphone makers and others are what Google calls its &#34;traffic acquisition costs.&#34; They totaled $40 billion in the first nine months of 2024, or 38% of Google&#39;s cost of revenue. If the company was banned from making these payments, Alphabet&#39;s gross margins would rise substantially immediately. On the downside, without the payments, Google could lose search market share, thereby limiting advertising revenue down the road. That impact is long-term and uncertain.The ban goes beyond third-party payments. The DOJ has said it wants to stop Google from using its search engine as the default option on its own line of Pixel smartphones.The DOJ wants the keys to the castle: The DOJ&#39;s proposed remedy would force Google to share its most important data with rivals, including well-heeled ones like Microsoft. One of Google&#39;s primary advantages would be lost -- its treasure trove of exclusive data, including its search index, ad data, and user data. These large data sets are the foundation of Google&#39;s success.The Enforcement: Perhaps the most intrusive part of the proposal is the DOJ&#39;s recommendation to create a technical committee that would oversee Google&#39;s compliance with the judge&#39;s ruling. The committee would be composed of five members, with a nomination process that almost guarantees the government would control a majority of the committee.The group would have broad powers to oversee Google, including interviewing employees, and accessing all documents, servers, and employee devices on request. The committee would also get to see Google&#39;s source code and algorithms, Google&#39;s most prized intellectual property.If the DOJ gets its way, most of the remedies would be in place for 10 years.On Thursday, Google had a blunt response to the government&#39;s proposals: &#34;DOJ had a chance to propose remedies related to the issue in this case, &#34; the company said in a blog post. &#34;Instead, DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America&#39;s global technology leadership.&#34;Next up: The court is scheduled to decide on the penalty phase of the Google trial in April, with a final ruling due in August. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta could choose to reject some or all of the DOJ&#39;s suggested remedies.Any actual enforcement could take years to play out. Google has already declared that it will appeal, and Mehta could decide to stay any remedies during the appeal, a process that could stretch out for years.The wild card: In the meantime, there is a new administration coming to the White House in January, and new appointees at the DOJ. Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ&#39;s lead on its cases against Google, will likely be replaced. But it&#39;s important to remember that this case originated in 2020 under the first Trump administration and it includes 49 states as co-plaintiffs. Most of these states have Republican Attorneys General.No one knows how a new DOJ would handle the case.Many on Wall Street remain doubtful the DOJ&#39;s proposal will come to fruition.&#34;We do not see a breakup in the next few years,&#34; Dan Ives of Wedbush told Barron&#39;s on Thursday. &#34;We see business model tweaks and also a much different tone from the Trump administration around Big Tech on the horizon.&#34;</body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"IE0003U64NQ7.SGD":"PIMCO BALANCED INCOME AND GROWTH \"M\" (SGDHDG) ACC","LU0198837287.USD":"UBS (LUX) EQUITY SICAV - USA GROWTH \"P\" (USD) ACC","LU0985320562.USD":"NORDEA 1 GLOBAL STARS EQUITY \"BP\" (USD) ACC","MSFT":"微软","LU1116320737.USD":"BGF SYSTEMATIC GLOBAL ENHANCED EQUITY YIELD \"A6\" (USD) INC","LU1815333072.USD":"THREADNEEDLE (LUX) GLOBAL FOCUS \"AUP\" (USD) INC","LU0949170426.SGD":"Blackrock Global Multi-Asset Income A6 SGD-H","LU0077335932.USD":"FIDELITY AMERICAN GROWTH \"A\" INC","LU2054465674.USD":"UBS (LUX) KEY SELEC SICAV DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION T \"P\" (USD) ACC","AAPL":"苹果","IE00BLSP4239.USD":"Legg Mason ClearBridge - Tactical Dividend Income A Mdis USD Plus","LU0348723411.USD":"ALLIANZ GLOBAL HI-TECH GROWTH \"A\" (USD) INC","LU0029864427.USD":"TEMPLETON GLOBAL \"A\" (USD) INC","LU1069347547.HKD":"AB SICAV I - GLOBAL VALUE PORTFOLIO \"AD\" (HKD) INC","IE00BLSP4452.SGD":"Legg Mason ClearBridge - Tactical Dividend Income A Mdis SGD-H Plus","IE0004086264.USD":"BNY MELLON GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU2065171311.SGD":"M&G (LUX) GLOBAL MAXIMA \"A\" (SGD) ACC","LU0784384876.USD":"Blackrock Global Multi-Asset Income A6 USD","LU1935042488.USD":"MANULIFE GF GLOBAL MULTI-ASSET DIVERSIFIED INCOME \"AA\" (USD) INC","LU2458330169.SGD":"FRANKLIN SHARIAH TECHNOLOGY \"A\" (SGD) ACC","IE00B3S45H60.SGD":"Neuberger Berman US Multicap Opportunities A Acc SGD-H","IE0004445239.USD":"JANUS HENDERSON US FORTY \"A2\" (USD) ACC","LU0068578508.USD":"First Eagle Amundi International Cl AU-C USD","LU0072462426.USD":"贝莱德全球配置 A2","LU1435385759.SGD":"Natixis Loomis Sayles US Growth Equity RA SGD-H","LU1935043536.SGD":"MANULIFE GF GLOBAL MULTI-ASSET DIVERSIFIED INCOME \"AA\" (SGDHDG) INC A","LU2125154778.USD":"ALLSPRING GLOBAL EQUITY ENHANCED INCOME \"A\" (USD) INC","LU1803068979.SGD":"FTIF - Franklin Technology A (acc) SGD-H1","LU2265009873.SGD":"Eastspring Investments - Global Growth Equity AS SGD-H","LU1934455277.USD":"AB SICAV I LOW VOLATILITY TOTAL RETURN EQUITY PORT \"AD\" (USD) INC","LU0061474960.USD":"天利环球焦点基金AU Acc","SG9999018857.SGD":"United Global Quality Growth Fd Cl Acc SGD-H","IE00BSNM7G36.USD":"NEUBERGER BERMAN SYSTEMATIC GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE VALUE \"A\" (USD) ACC","SG9999000418.SGD":"Aberdeen Standard Global Technology SGD","LU1934455194.USD":"AB SICAV I LOW VOLATILITY TOTAL RETURN EQUITY PORT \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU2756315664.SGD":"ALLIANZ INCOME AND GROWTH \"AMI\" (SGDHDG) INC","LU0511384066.AUD":"SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL THEMATIC PORTFOLIO \"A\" (AUDHDG) ACC","SG9999015986.USD":"LIONGLOBAL DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION \"I\" (USD) ACC","LU2236285917.USD":"ALLIANZ GLOBAL INCOME \"AMG\" (USD) INC","BK4561":"索罗斯持仓","LU0994945656.USD":"NINETY ONE GSF GLOBAL FRANCHISE \"A\" (USD) INC 2","SG9999001424.SGD":"United E-Commerce Fund SGD","LU1852331112.SGD":"Blackrock World Technology Fund A2 SGD-H"},"source_url":"https://dowjonesnews.com/newdjn/logon.aspx?AL=N","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2485444956","content_text":"The U.S. Department of Justice has aggressively pursued Google as a monopolist in recent years, going back to the first Trump administration. And it's gotten a federal judge to rule in its favor.But the DOJ's full intentions weren't fully clear until late last night when the department filed specific remedies that it would like to see the U.S. District judge impose. The DOJ is out for a pound of flesh.While media reports had telegraphed the government's demand to sever Chrome and Android from Google, the filing went much further. The government has a set of demands that go deeply into the way Google does business, and it seems to be spooking investors. Until now, shares of Google-parent Alphabet have largely escaped regulatory worry. But on Thursday, the stock was down 4.7%.Here's why investors are nervous:An end to search payments: The payments that Google makes to be the default on mobile devices were at the heart of the DOJ's case. Most prominent among these are Google's payouts to Apple, which were pegged at $20 billion in 2022 during the trail. That number represented 16% of Google's cost-of-revenue. But they're also material to Apple, comprising 5% of its 2022 revenue. Assuming that stream of payments all falls to the bottom line, it would have been roughly 21% of Apple's net income that year.It's not clear how Apple would replace that income, though, for now investors don't seem particularly worried. Apple shares were up slightly on Wednesday.Google also makes payments to Android smartphone providers to ensure its software is preloaded on phones, and that its search is the default option. If the DOJ gets its way, those payments would also be banned.These payments to the smartphone makers and others are what Google calls its \"traffic acquisition costs.\" They totaled $40 billion in the first nine months of 2024, or 38% of Google's cost of revenue. If the company was banned from making these payments, Alphabet's gross margins would rise substantially immediately. On the downside, without the payments, Google could lose search market share, thereby limiting advertising revenue down the road. That impact is long-term and uncertain.The ban goes beyond third-party payments. The DOJ has said it wants to stop Google from using its search engine as the default option on its own line of Pixel smartphones.The DOJ wants the keys to the castle: The DOJ's proposed remedy would force Google to share its most important data with rivals, including well-heeled ones like Microsoft. One of Google's primary advantages would be lost -- its treasure trove of exclusive data, including its search index, ad data, and user data. These large data sets are the foundation of Google's success.The Enforcement: Perhaps the most intrusive part of the proposal is the DOJ's recommendation to create a technical committee that would oversee Google's compliance with the judge's ruling. The committee would be composed of five members, with a nomination process that almost guarantees the government would control a majority of the committee.The group would have broad powers to oversee Google, including interviewing employees, and accessing all documents, servers, and employee devices on request. The committee would also get to see Google's source code and algorithms, Google's most prized intellectual property.If the DOJ gets its way, most of the remedies would be in place for 10 years.On Thursday, Google had a blunt response to the government's proposals: \"DOJ had a chance to propose remedies related to the issue in this case, \" the company said in a blog post. \"Instead, DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership.\"Next up: The court is scheduled to decide on the penalty phase of the Google trial in April, with a final ruling due in August. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta could choose to reject some or all of the DOJ's suggested remedies.Any actual enforcement could take years to play out. Google has already declared that it will appeal, and Mehta could decide to stay any remedies during the appeal, a process that could stretch out for years.The wild card: In the meantime, there is a new administration coming to the White House in January, and new appointees at the DOJ. Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ's lead on its cases against Google, will likely be replaced. But it's important to remember that this case originated in 2020 under the first Trump administration and it includes 49 states as co-plaintiffs. Most of these states have Republican Attorneys General.No one knows how a new DOJ would handle the case.Many on Wall Street remain doubtful the DOJ's proposal will come to fruition.\"We do not see a breakup in the next few years,\" Dan Ives of Wedbush told Barron's on Thursday. \"We see business model tweaks and also a much different tone from the Trump administration around Big Tech on the horizon.\"","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":127,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":37,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/373543719842000"}