Google appeals search monopoly ruling, says it won business ‘fair and square’
Google appeals search monopoly ruling, says it won business ‘fair and square’
谷歌就搜索垄断裁决提起上诉，称其业务赢得“光明正大”
Google officially filed its appeal of the federal ruling deeming it an illegal search monopolist, arguing the decision “crashed” through legal guardrails. “Google just prevailed in the marketplace fair and square,” it writes in its legal filing. 谷歌已正式就联邦法院认定其为非法搜索垄断者的裁决提起上诉，辩称该裁决“冲破”了法律准则。谷歌在法律文件中写道：“谷歌在市场竞争中是光明正大地胜出的。”
Google had already said it would appeal the ruling, which includes both the August 2024 decision about its illegal monopolization and the September 2025 remedies decision that ordered it to share some search data with competitors. The appeal brief filed Friday gives more insight into how the company plans to fight Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling. 谷歌此前已表示将对该裁决提起上诉，该裁决涵盖了2024年8月关于其非法垄断的裁定，以及2025年9月要求其与竞争对手共享部分搜索数据的补救措施裁定。周五提交的上诉摘要进一步揭示了该公司计划如何挑战阿米特·梅塔（Amit Mehta）法官的裁决。
“We are asking the court to overturn this flawed decision – partners and users have many options and choose Google because it provides the best, most helpful results,” Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement. 谷歌监管事务副总裁李-安妮·穆尔霍兰（Lee-Anne Mulholland）在一份声明中表示：“我们请求法院推翻这一有缺陷的裁决——合作伙伴和用户有很多选择，他们选择谷歌是因为它提供了最好、最有帮助的结果。”
Google argues that Mehta erred in finding that its search distribution agreements with browser and device makers were anticompetitive. Instead, it argues, other market players simply preferred its services over rivals’. Mehta also “egregiously exceeded” his judicial discretion in the remedies he ordered, according to Google, which included the “extraordinary step of ordering Google to boost its competitors through data-transfer and syndication.” 谷歌辩称，梅塔法官在认定其与浏览器和设备制造商签署的搜索分发协议具有反竞争性时存在错误。谷歌认为，市场参与者仅仅是更青睐其服务而非竞争对手的服务。据谷歌称，梅塔在下达补救措施时“严重越权”，其中包括“要求谷歌通过数据传输和联合供稿来扶持竞争对手这一非同寻常的举措”。
The company also takes issue with how the remedies require data sharing with generative AI players that it says “could not have been affected by Google’s conduct because they did not even exist during the relevant period, and that are already succeeding as wildly as any technology in human history without any need to free-ride on Google’s success.” 该公司还对补救措施中要求与生成式人工智能企业共享数据的规定表示异议，称这些企业“不可能受到谷歌行为的影响，因为它们在相关时期甚至还不存在，而且它们目前的发展速度已达到人类历史上任何技术的巅峰，根本无需搭谷歌成功的便车”。
The US and a coalition of states that sued alongside it are also appealing the same decision, arguing that Mehta should have gone further in his remedies decision. Mehta declined to grant the government its biggest asks, including a sale of Google’s Chrome browser, which it argues is a key distribution platform for search offerings. The government argued that a broad sweep of changes was necessary to resolve Google’s harms to competition. 美国政府及与其共同起诉的各州联盟也对同一裁决提起了上诉，认为梅塔在补救措施裁定中应采取更严厉的手段。梅塔拒绝了政府提出的核心诉求，包括强制出售谷歌的 Chrome 浏览器，政府认为该浏览器是搜索产品的主要分发平台。政府辩称，必须进行大范围的改革才能解决谷歌对竞争造成的损害。
About five years since the initial case was filed, it’s now up to a federal appeals court in DC to determine what should happen next. From there, the case could eventually go all the way up to the Supreme Court. 距离最初立案已过去约五年，现在由华盛顿特区的联邦上诉法院来决定下一步的走向。此后，该案最终可能会上诉至最高法院。